Timespace Matters - Chapter 1 Problem and research strategy

8/9/2019 Timespace Matters - Chapter 1 Problem and research strategy

1/32

Chapter1Problemandresearchstrategy1.1 IntroducingtheworkThisbookreportsonanexplorationthatstartedattheendof2004. Itexploresthe

bordersbetween thedomainofsocialgeographyand thedomainofurbanand re

gionaldesignandplanning.Theworkcontainedinthisbookhasbeeninspiredbytwo

questionsthatareformeattheheartofurbanandregionaldesignandplanning

(stedebouwkunde).ThefirstofthosequestionsparaphrasesTorstenHgerstrand,the

founderof timegeography:Whataboutpeople inurbanand regionaldesign and

planning?(cf.Hgerstrand,1970)Thesecondquestionlinksthatquestiontothework

ofKevinLynch,valuedtheoristonurbandesign,whowasconcernedwiththeexperi

enceoftimeincities:Whatabouttimeinurbanandregionaldesignandplanning?(cf.

Lynch,1972)Askingthesequestionssupposesastandpointthatshowsconcernfora

lackofattentiondespiteampletheorisationtothesetwoaspectsofurbanism(cf.

Amin andGraham, 1997;Amin and Thrift,2002),within thedomainofurban and

regionaldesignandplanning.

Thisthesissstartingpointisthatitisimportanttoknowaboutpeoplestemporospatialactivitypatternswhenmakingurbanandregionaldesignsandplans.Thecen

tralproblemof the thesis is that,despitewideacknowledgmentof this idea, such

knowledgeaboutpeoplesactivitypatternsdoesnotgetfullattention indaytoday

practice of urban and regional design and planning. This is not a particularly new

problem,buthasbeenamatterof interest from the1960sonwards inbothDutch

urbanplanning,aswellasabroad.Iwillmakethecasethat,withactivitypatternsof

peoplechangingthesedays,thissubjectagaindeservesfullattentionwithinthedo

mainofurbanandregionaldesignandplanning.

Oneexplanationfortheoccurrenceofthisparticularproblemisthatthereexistsa

socalledapplicabilitygapbetweenknowledgeoftemporospatialactivitypatternsofpeople and knowledge of urban and regional design and planning. Therefore, the

explorativeworkcontainedinthisbookisaboutthewaysinwhichdesignersorplan

nerscanknowaboutpeoplespossibleandprobableactivityandmobilitybehaviour

in timeandspaceandhow theycanactupon thatknowledgewhile theirobjectof

study is something different, namely the design of the built environment. In the

1960sand1970s theanswer to thatproblem seemedwithineasy reach in thedo

mainofurbanandregionaldesignandplanning.Theoriesofpeoplesbehaviour,of

urbandevelopmentandofurbanplanningcame intoconfluence inaperiodcharac

terised bymuch optimism about the future and the ability to actively shape that

future.But

the

future

proved

stubborn,

resisting

being

shaped

fully

to

those

theories.

Bothhumanbehaviourandurbandevelopmentprovedmoredifficulttograspthan


2/32

Timespacematters

2

imagined.Theresult,nowadays,isthatweareleftwithamuchmoreintricateproblemthantheplannersofthe1960s; ifwestillwanttoputpeoplecentral inouref

fortstoshapethephysicalfabricofcitiesandurbanregions.

Thechallengeforthisstudywastofindaway todealwithsuch increasedcom

plexitywithoutbacktracking intoa relativismof wecantdoanythingabout it.At

theheartof theargument lies theconviction that theshapingof thephysicalenvi

ronmentdoesplayaroleinprovidingthenecessaryconditionsforpeoplesindividual

livestobeplayedout intimeandspace.Thescientificrelevanceofthework lies in

thefactthatitbridgesagapbetweenasocialsciencestanceandatechnicalscience

stancesothat itextendsthescientificbodyofknowledgeofurbandesignandplan

ning.Thoughthatbodyofknowledgewillultimatelyhavetobefilledwithsubstantiveknowledgeofwhattypeofdesignprinciplesmight work(seeKlaasen,2004), I

willnotprovidereadymadeprinciplesfordesign. Iwillprovidea firststeptowards

developingsuchknowledgebyproviding ideasabouthowknowledgeabouttempo

rospatialactivitypatternsofpeoplecanbeembedded inurbanandregionaldesign

andplanning.

Thework isbasedonanalysing twoparticularapproaches to incorporatingem

pirical knowledge of activity patterns of people in urban and regional design and

planning. The approaches represent two complementary views of how onemight

graspthe importanceoftemporospatialactivitypatternsofpeople inthedomainof

urbanand

regional

design

and

planning.

One

focuses

on

knowledge

about

patterns

of

activities andemphasises the roleofempirical knowledge.Theother approach fo

cuses on the constraints for those activities to unfold and emphasises the role of

knowledgeaboutdesignandplanning.

Thework iscolouredbyaDutchcontext,but itsargumentextendsbeyond the

bordersof that context.Thereareother reasons for theDutchcolourof thework

besidesbeingtheplacewheretheresearchtookplace.TheNetherlandshasagood

reputation internationally with regard to the stature of the domain of urban and

regionaldesignandplanningduetoboththeplanningsystemaswellastheculture

ofdesign.But,asthisfirstchapterwilldemonstrate,thisreputationisunderpressure

fromwithin the domain and because the societal context inwhich the domain is

placedisfundamentallychanging.Thesetwoconditionsprovideforavividdebateto

takeplaceonthedomainintheNetherlands,whichprovidesarichsourcefordiscov

eringnewopportunitiesinlightofthedesignandplanningtasksathand.Itthuspro

videsagratifyingsettingforstudy.

Inthischapter,firstly,thebackgroundofthisthesiswillbeprovided:thewayitis

positionedwithinthedomainofurbanandregionaldesignandplanningand inthe

context of societal developments regarding the organisation of time and space in

contemporarysociety.Thechapterdescribesthefocusoftheworkbyprovidingthe

problemdescription,thekeyconceptsusedinthisthesisandthemainresearchques

tion. Iconclude thechapterbyproviding the lineof reasoningbywhich thedesign

andplanningapproachesanalysedinChapters5and6havebeenchosenanddemar

cated.


3/32

Chapter1Problemandresearchstrategy

3

1.2 Background1.2.1 AcrisisinDutchurbanandregionaldesignandplanning?During the 1990s, it was widely held in the Netherlands that the designoriented

urbanplanningdomainofstedebouwkunde(urbanandregionaldesignandplanning),

itstheoreticalbasisanditspractices,founditselfinacrisisandwasinneedofreha

bilitation(NioandReijndorp,1997).Thiscrisiswasparticularlyintellectualinnature,

but at times extended into the practices constituting the profession of stedebou

wkunde aswell as, for example, into educational reform. Thiswas not something

particularlynew,asthis crisiswithregard to itsefficiencyandrelevancehadbeen

proclaimedsince theearly1980s, ifnotearlier (Boelens,1990).Norwas it the last

timethattheneedforrehabilitationwouldbecalledfor(OCW,VROM,LNVandV&W,

2008;BNSP,2009).Theoriginsofthisperpetualcrisisattheendofthe20thcentury

canbetracedtoanumberofdifferent,convergingproblemssuchastheshiftup in

thelevelofspatialscaleofurbandesignproblems,thechangingrelationbetweenthe

urbanandtherural,thefailureoftheplanasan instrumentforplanning,thefailed

projectofmodernism inurbanplanningwith itsfunctionalzoningapproach,there

alisationthattheknowledgesystemofpreparatoryresearchfeedingthedesignofa

planwas increasingly ineffective if iteverworkedatall; and the splinteringof the

disciplineasaresultofspecialisationandclaimingofurbanandregionaldesignand

planningissuesbyotherdomains.

Thisproclaimedcrisisstirredthedebateonthecoreofstedebouwkunde;thede

bateon this topicduring the1990s isparticularly interesting. In thisperiodanew

bodyof literatureon thehistoryof thedomainarose intheNetherlands (e.g.Valk,

1990;Bosma,1993;FaludiandValk,1994;Somer,2007). Inplanningpolicycircles

thiswas theperiodmarkedby the implementationof theVierdeNotaRuimtelijke

Ordening(FourthMemorandumonSpatialPlanning)(VROM,1990)andtheprepara

tionoftheVijfdeNotaRuimtelijkeOrdening(FifthMemorandumonSpatialPlanning)

(VROM, 2001b;Werkgroep Vijfde Nota RuimtelijkeOrdening, 2000). The planning

concept urbannetworksbecamecentral inthepreparationof theFifthMemorandumalthoughasaplanningconcept itwasratherambiguousandnotparticularly

new (cf. Cammen and Klerk, 2003) while the buzzword by then was ontwik

kelingsplanologie(spatialdevelopmentplanning)asopposedtotoelatingsplanologie

(landcontrolorientedspatialplanning)(WRR,1998).Stedebouwkundigen(urbanand

regional designers) were searching for their role in this new setting (Nio and

Reijndorp,1997).

1.2.2 Urbanandregionaldesignandplanning:definitionofitsmaterialobjectAsdifferentopinionsaboutwhatconstitutesthedomainofurbanandregionaldesignandplanningexistwithinthedomain,it isnecessaryheretoelaborateonhowIsee


4/32

Timespacematters

4

thatdomain. It isalso important toclarifytheuseofthis term inrelation toother,particularlyDutchtermsthataresimilar,equivalentoradjacent.Thisalsorelatesto

howIamusingEnglishtranslationsofDutchtermsofruimtelijkeplanning,planologie,

andstedebouwkundeasIexplainthembelow.

InthisthesisIwilluseoneumbrellatermthatencompassesbothruimtelijkeplan

ningandstedebouwkunde.Thisterm is urbanandregionaldesignandplanning. In

translationstedebouwkundesuggestsanemphasisonurbanandregionaldesignand

physicalspatial organisation, while ruimtelijke planning suggests an emphasis on

urbanand regionalplanningandsocietalspatialorganisation.However, Isee these

Dutchtermsasinseparable,concerningthesameobjectofstudyinboththeoryand

practice,despitebothtermshavingdifferentconnotations.Idoconsciouslyseparateplanologie fromurbanandregionaldesignandplanning.Whatmaybeconfusing is

thatplanologieisoftentranslatedasspatialplanning,theliteraltranslationofruim

telijkeplanning.However,planologie,inmyview,concernsafundamentallydifferent

objectofstudyinboththeoryandpracticeincomparisontothecoherentcomplexof

knowledgeandaction(kennis enhandelingscomplex;cf.Boelens,1990:8)thatIwill

describeasurbanandregionaldesignandplanning.Iregardplanologietobeaform

ofpoliticalororganisational sciencewhileurban and regionaldesign andplanning

canberegardedasatechnical,practicalscience(seeKlaasen,2004).

Ontheonehand,itwillbepossibletoseethecentralproblemofthisthesis(see

section1.3)

as

asubstantive

problem

concerning

the

material

object

of

urban

and

regionaldesignandplanning.Hiddingdefinesthematerialobjectofruimtelijkeplan

ningthe term thatHiddinguses i.e.urbanandregionaldesignandplanning,as

spatialorganisationastheresultofthereciprocaladaptationofspaceandsociety

(Hidding,2006:101).Modelsofthematerialobjectofurbanandregionaldesignand

planningareatthebasisofthedefinitionofbothplanninganddesigntasks(Hidding,

2006).Suchmodelsareconceptual innatureandaimtodescribethecomplexrela

tions,mechanisms,processesandelementsofsocietalandphysicalreality.Hidding

(2006:100)describeshow this translates into two fundamental tasksof spatialor

ganisationforthedomainofurbanandregionaldesignandplanning.Notethatspa

tial organisation is identified byHidding not in terms of an endimage, but as an

intermediateresult,continuouslyadaptedinlightofongoingsocietalprocesses.The

first,butnotnecessarilypredominant,fundamentaltaskconcernsthespatialorgani

sationofthemutualrelationsbetweenpeople,organisations,etc.Thisrelatestothe

geographicallocationofsocial(societal)activitiesintheirrelativepositionsaswellas

tothepossibilitytointervene,change,andadapttheserelativepositions.Thistaskis

thatofsocietalspatialorganisation.Thesecondfundamentaltaskconcernsthespa

tialorganisationofrelationswithandwithinthephysicalenvironment.Thisrelatesto

thedesign,transformation, realisationandmaintenanceofthephysicalenvironment,

respondingtothecharacteristics,limitationsandpossibilitiesofwhatisalreadythere

naturallyandculturally.Thistaskisthatofphysicalspatialorganisation.Thedistinc

tion between the two types of spatial organisationmust be seen as an analytical


5/32


5

distinction.Inrealitytheseareboundtogetherandexistonlyinareciprocalrelation(cf.Figure1.1).

Ontheotherhand,itwillbepossibletoseethecentralproblemofthisthesis(see

section1.1)asaproblemconcerning the framingofurbanandregionaldesignand

planning tasks inurbanandregionaldesignandplanningpractice.Framesare sys

temsofmeaning thatorganisewhatwe know (Healey,2007:25). Iuse the term

framingtorefertothechoiceof languageforsuchmodels,aswellastothecon

struction, (ab)useandadaptationofmodelsofthematerialobjectofurbanandre

gionaldesignandplanning inparticularapproaches.Suchframingtakesplace inde

sign and planning processes by applying knowledge in the making of designs and

plansandreciprocallybydoingresearchtoinformpeoplewhodesignandplan.Thissecond view implies that, inaddition toa substantive component, thereare social

and procedural aspects that are important for exploring the problem. Note that,

though I focuson theuseofempiricalknowledgebydesignersandplanners, there

aremanyothertypesofknowledgethatareusedinthemakingofurbanandregional

designs and plans such as ideas about the nature, purpose and appropriate tasks

associatedwithplanning,ideasabouttheroleandpowersofanindividualplanneror

groupinaparticularsituationorpractice,andideas,concepts,facts,proceduresand

theorieswhichplannersanddesignersapplytoproblemsandtasks(seee.g.Healey

andUnderwood,1978).

Figure1.1Thereciprocalrelationbetweenthephysicalurbansystemandurbansociety,accord

ingtoKlaasen(2004:22)

1.2.3 TwoviewsofthecoreofurbanandregionaldesignandplanningThisthesisisaproductofthefirstdecadeofthe21

stcentury.Itneedstobeseen,on

theonehand,against thebackgroundof thedevelopmentswithin thedisciplineofstedebouwkunde in the1990s.And,on theotherhand, itneeds tobeseenagainst


6/32

Timespacematters

6

thebackdropofanumberof societaldevelopments in the secondhalfof the20thcentury,partiallydrivenbythemassificationandinnovationofmobility,information

andcommunicationtechnologies.

Let'sfirsttakealookatthedisciplineofstedebouwkunde.Thestartingofanum

berofprojects in the1990s, rethinking the foundationsof thediscipline stedebou

wkunde,isofparticularrelevancehere.Thissearchforfoundationsdisclosedsomeof

thefundamentaldifferencesintheapproachofstedebouwkundigeproblemsandfor

whichtheUrbanismdepartmentattheFacultyofArchitectureofDelftUniversityof

Technologymaybeseenasan illustrativeexample. Inthesecondhalfofthe1990s

twoverydifferentattemptswereinitiatedattheUrbanismDepartmentofDelftUni

versityofTechnologytorethinkthefoundationsforthestedebouwkundeforthe21st

century.

Ontheonehand,therewerethoseinvolvedintheresearchprogrammeDeKern

vandeStedebouwinhetPerspectiefvandeEenentwintigsteEeuw.Forthisgroup,the

designoftheurbangroundplanasthedurablefabricofcitiesshouldberegardedas

thecoreofthedomain,tobeseeninrelationto(andmediatingbetween)thespatial

functionalorganisationoftheterritory(read:landuseplanning),thephysicaldesign

ofpublicspacesandthesetsofrulesandregulationsforbuilding(Heeling,Bekkering

andWestrik,2001;Heeling,MeyerandWestrik,2002).Suchaperspectiveonurban

designandplanningconcernsitselfprimarilywiththecompositionofspatialpatterns

withthe

aim

of

transforming

the

physical

fabric

of

cities.

The

physical

fabric

of

cities

fromthispointofviewisconstitutedbydifferentphysicalelementsthatcanbesepa

rated in layers,ofwhich the layerof theurbangroundplanplaysaprimary role in

structuringthecompositionofotherlayers(seeFigure1.2).

On theotherhand, therewere those involved in the researchprogrammeNet

workCities.Forthisgroup,thecoreofthedomainlayinthepossibilityofanurban

ismofnetworks.Thismeant, first, to revalueplanning classics that consider cities

and urban regions in terms of dynamic network structures following the work of

GabrielDupuy(1991)and,second,toconsidertheconsequencesoftheintroduction

ofnew informationandcommunicationtechnologiesattheendofthe20thcentury

(Drewe,2003a).Thisresearchprogrammehasbeenbasedontheassumptionthatso

callednetwork thinkershave longbeenmarginalised inmainstreamurban and re

gionaldesignandplanning,butthat,withtheriseofthe networksociety(Castells,

1996 (2000)) it is necessary to see urban design and planning problems from the

perspectiveofsocalledoperatorsofnetworks.Ofparticularimportanceisthestudy

oftherelationbetweenoperatorsoftechnicalnetworks,theoperatorsoffunctional

networksandhouseholdsastheyconstitutetheirownparticularnetworkofactivities

andtheirinteractionswithothersineverydaylife(Drewe,2003b;Dupuy,Schaickand

Klaasen,2008;Dupuy,1991)(seeFigure1.3).Thisviewonthedomainofurbanplan

ningconcerns itselfprimarilywiththecomplex interactionofprocesses intimeand

spaceratherthanjustwiththetransformationofspatialpatternsovertime.

The study before you has been developed in the context of the research pro

grammeNetworkCities.InthatresearchprogrammeIhavetakenupthechallengeto


7/32


7

givemore substance tooneof theyet seeminglyunderdeveloped issues in the researchprogrammeofanurbanismofnetworks:thewayinwhichthinkingaboutthe

networksofhouseholds in themakingofurbandesignsandplansmaybe incorpo

rated.Andthisfocusonthedailylifeofpeoplebringsustotheimportanceofanum

berofsocietaldevelopmentsinthe1990sinthefollowingsection.

Figure 1.2 The composition ofphysicalpatterns in theurban groundplan,public spaceand

builtup

space

central

to

the

domain

of

urban

and

regional

design

and

planning.

Source:

Heelingetal.(2001);Heelingetal.(2002)


8/32


9/32


9

Although Iwillgo intomoredetail inChapter2,explaining these conceptsandtheir implications, it is important topayattention to theseconceptshere.Whatdo

theyconcretelymean?Thefirstconcept,timespacecompression,impliesthatpeople

generallyhavebecomemorebusy, i.e.aredoingmore inthesameamountoftime;

asisthecaseintheNetherlands(Breedveldetal.,2001)(cf.Peters,2003;Galle,Dam,

Peeters,Pols,RitsemavanEck,SegerenandVerwest,2004).Italsoimpliestheideaof

an increasingly faster turnover time forgoodsand information (Harvey,1990).The

secondconcept, timespaceconvergence, implies thatnewmeansof transportation

and communication have allowed for information, goods and people to travel in

creasinglylargerdistancesinshortertimespansasisthecasesincetheintroduction

oftherailwaysystems inthe19thcenturyand isstill increasinglythecasewiththeintroductionofnewtechnologiesorwithadjustmentstoexistingtechnologies(Woud,

2006;Harvey,1990).Thecombinationof these two concepts implies the idea that

moreandmorepeoplemightexperiencetimepressure inscheduling theirdailyac

tivities. Paradoxically in the Netherlands, this also seems to apply to free time in

whichmoreandmoreactivities takeplace (Haan,Broek,HuysmansandBreedveld,

2003).

Thethirdconcept,timespaceflexibilisation, impliestwothings.Ontheonehandit

implies thatagrowth invariationof thedailypatternofactivitiesofpeoplecanbe

observed.Afterall,noteveryonecanorwillparticipate inthespeedingupofdaily

life.On

the

other

hand,

itimplies

that

people

might

be

forced

to

become

more

flexi

ble to tune in toother,moredominant temporospatialpatternselsewhere. They

maysobecomemoreflexiblebecausetechnologiesweavetogethertherhythmsof

economic and social activities in multiple places at the same time (Castells, 1996

(2000)).Thatdoublesidedconceptofflexibilisation isconnectedtothe lastconcept

thatIhaveputforwardabove,timespaceindividualisation.

Thisconceptreferstothewhoandwithwhomofactivitiesofpeople.Withregard

to the latter, the Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau (SCP; the Netherlands Institute for

SocialResearch)hasshown that there isa trend inwhichpeoplearespending less

timeonsocialcontacts(Breedveldetal.,2001).Atthesametime,withmorewomen

on the labour market, active 55plussers and the emergence of task combining

households all phenomena characteristic of increasingly individual choices with

regard to lifestyleclassicnotionsabouthouseholds seemno longer sufficient to

understandandorganisecities(Knaap,2002).However,atthesametime,relatively

littlehaschangedoverthelastdecadeswithregardtothecollectiverhythmofdaily

life,atleastintheNetherlands;thecollectiverhythmbeingaphenomenoninwhich

thewithwhomofactivitypatternsbecomesultimatelyvisible.Therhythmofdayand

night and the rhythmof life governed by labour hours are still the two dominant

Zeitgeber(thecuesthatregulatetheorderoftime)intheNetherlands;andtheMon

daytoFriday and 9to5 culture of paid work proves to be very persistent there

(Breedveldetal.,2001).

TheSociaalCultureel

Planbureau(SCP)hasclaimedthatamultiplechoicesociety

is emerging; the demanding society is theother sideof this coin (Breedveld and


10/32

Timespacematters

10

Broek,2003).Thistensionbetweenthemultiplechoicesocietyandstrongcollectivetime structures hasmeant that in particular for those households that combine a

multitudeoftasks,socalledtaskcombiners,thequalityoflifehascomeunderpres

sure.Duringthe1990s itbecamewidelyrecognised, inparticular insocialpolicycir

cles,thattherewasasetofproblemsthatneededtobetackled.TheVROMraadin

theiradviceDagindelinggeordend? (Planningdaily routinearrangements?) (VROM

raad, 2000) distinguished three types of bottlenecks that needed to be solved to

improvequalityoflifefortaskcombininghouseholds:

1. Beschikbaarheidsknelpunten (availability bottlenecks) such as openingtimeswhicharearesultoftemporalorganisationaslaiddownbyinstitutions,forexample,providingamenities;

2. Bereikbaarheidsknelpunten (accessibility bottlenecks, i.e. to be physicallywithinreach)whicharearesultofthespatialpositionofservices

and amenities, for example in how they are positioned in relation to

publictransportfacilities;

3. Toegankelijkheidsknelpunten (approachability and utility bottlenecks)whicharerelatedtotheappropriatesocialeconomicandsocialcultural

conditions for accessibilityof services and amenities; thinkof services

andgoodsbeingtooexpensivetobuyortoreach,orofamismatchbe

tweenavailable

goods

and

services

and

desired

goods

and

services.

1.3 Problemstatementandkeyconcepts1.3.1 ProblemstatementThisstudydealswithan intellectualproblem,aproblemoftheory,ratherthanwith

anempiricalproblem.Itconcernstheexplorationofhow,inthedomainofurbanand

regionaldesignandplanning,todealinabetterwaywithaparticularkindofknowl

edgeandwithaparticularwayofseeingurbantransformationprocesses.

Inanidealsituation,urbanenvironmentsaresuitedtoaccommodatethedesired

anddesirableactivitiesandmovementsofpeoplethatinhabitandvisitthemasbest

aspossibleforasmanyaspossible.Urbanandregionaldesignersandplannershave

animportantroletoplayininventingnewenvironmentsandadaptingthosethatno

longersuffice,soastobetteraccommodatethosedesiresanddesirablesthanbefore.

Torealiseurbanenvironmentsthatcanbesustainedoverlongerperiodsoftime,itis

important tounderstandhowpeoples lives areorganised in time and spaceon a

daily, weekly and monthly basis (Klaasen, 2004;Drewe, 2004; 2005b). Urban and

regional designers and planners would ideally base their decisions on a thorough

understandingofhowurbanenvironmentsand theirproposals for interventions inthoseenvironmentswouldaffectpeoplesactivitiesandmobility.Itisalsoimportant


11/32


11

thattheyunderstandhowchanges inactivityandmobilitybehaviour in turncreatenewdemandsfortheurbanenvironmenttoaccommodate.Klaasen(2004),amongst

others,hasarguedthatwithoutsuchunderstandingerrorsindesignandplanningare

easilymade,resultingindifficulttouseorillusedurbanplacesandlargerurbansys

tems.

Knowledgeon thesocalled temporospatialactivitypatternsofpeople is readily

availablewithinthedomainofhumangeography (seeChapter2).Twomajorprob

lemsoccurwithusingandapplyingsuchknowledgeinurbanandregionaldesignand

planning.Onehas todowith thedissimilaritiesbetween thedomainofurbanand

regional design and planning and the domain of human geography. Fundamental

differencesexistbetweentypesofknowledge inthetwodomainsThereare fundamentaldifferencesbetween the typeofknowledgeonhow tomakeurbanand re

gionaldesignsandplans focusedonphysicalspatial interventionsandchanges in

urbanareasandregionsconstitutedby largetemporalgrains(years,decades)and

knowledgeabouthowtounderstandactivitybehaviourofpeoplefocusedonem

piricalknowledgeoftemporospatialpatternsconstitutedbysmallertemporalgrains

(days,weeks,months).Toapplythe lattertotheformerprovesdifficult:atthepiv

otalpointbetweenthesetwobodiesofknowledgeasocalledapplicability gapcan

befound(seeChapter3).

Theothermajorproblemoccurswhenlookingatthefactthatsocietyischanging:

thedomain

of

urban

and

regional

design

and

planning

seems

to

be

lagging

behind

in

understandingthosechangesandactinguponthem(Drewe,2004;2005a).Proposed

interventionsareoftenbasedonanunderstandingofpatternsofbehaviourofdays

pastratherthanpossibleandplausiblepatternsoffuturebehaviour(Klaasen,2004).

It is indeed difficult to grasp activitypatternsof people now that they are rapidly

changingduetosocietalandtechnologicaldevelopments(seeChapter2).Theques

tion is ifonecan findnewways toproposeurban interventionsbasedona funda

mental understanding of temporospatial activity patterns of people and the way

thesemaybechangingovertime.

Ifurbanandregionaldesignersandplannersarenotcapableofansweringtothe

questionofhowtoaccommodate,sustainably,activitypatternsofpeople,itislikely

that,within their domain of knowledge and action, they remain searching for the

relevance of the domain in society. In the meantime society will have already

changedagain,answering to itsowndynamics. If,however, itwouldbepossible to

applyknowledgeontemporospatialactivitypatternsofpeopleinurbanandregional

designandplanning,therelevanceof thatdomain inaworldwherethosepatterns

arechangingwould increasesignificantly.Resolving theapplicabilitygapproblem is

crucialtogettingthere.Previousattemptshavelargelyfailedwithregardtoembed

dingknowledgeonactivitypatternsofpeopleinurbanandregionaldesignandplan

ning(seesection1.4).

Thisleadstothefollowingconciseproblemstatementforthisthesis:


12/32

Timespacematters

12

Agap

occurs

between

understanding

how

temporospatial

activity

patterns

ofpeople get constituted and change, and knowing how to design and

planurbansystems.Thisgaphindersthemakingofdesignsandplansfor

urbanareasandregionsthatcanaccommodateplausibleandprobablefu

turepatternsoftemporospatialbehaviourinasustainablemanner.With

outunderstandingtheorderingoftimeinrelationtotheorderingofspace,

thisgapcannotbebridged.Norcanthisproblemberesolvedwithoutun

derstanding knowledgeapplication processes when different knowledge

domainshavetobebridged.

To elaborate this problem statement Iwill explain three key concepts as buildingblocksforthemainresearchquestionsofthisstudy.Firstly,IwillidentifywhatIthink

ofastemporospatialactivitypatternsofpeople.Secondly, Iwillprovidearudimen

tarydefinitionoftheapplicabilitygapconcept.Thirdly,Iwillbrieflyoutlinethebasic

ideaofknowledgeutilitystudies.Theseconceptswillbeelaboratedinmoredetailin

Chapters2,3and4.

1.3.2 TemporospatialactivitypatternsofpeopleThefirstkeyconceptconcernsthenotionoftemporospatialactivitypatternsofpeo

ple.Thebasicconceptof temporospatialactivitypatternsofpeoplecanbeunderstoodbylookingattheweblikeschemeoffigure1.4.Thisfiguredemonstrateshow

anindividualmaycombineaseriesofactivitiesduringalimitedamountoftime,and

howonecanmeasureanddocumenttherelation intimeandspacebetweenthose

activities.Figure1.4showshow,forexample,thenumberofactivities,thedistance,

i.e.moving,betweenactivitiesaswellasthe locationofa homebaseareof influ

enceon the totalamountofactivities thatcanbeundertakenbyan individual ina

certainamountoftime.Theideaisthatactivitypatternsareconstitutedbyboththe

patternofmultipleactivitiescarriedoutinsituaswellasbythepatternsofmobility

necessary to combineactivities indifferentplaces. In this thesis I focusonactivity

patternsofpeople,butasimilarconceptmay,forexample,applytopatternsofactivitiesofcompanies.

Iwillexplicatethatthisseeminglysimpleideahaslargetheoreticalimplications.

ThespatialreachofanactivitypatternwillshowinChapter2tobesubjecttoarange

of socalled constraints (Hgerstrand, 1970), although people are also themselves

capableofseekingwaysto increaseorreorganisethespanoftheiractivitypatterns

(Giddens,1984).Such influenceagencymustbeseen inthecontextofpowerful

mechanisms by which both societal patterns and peoples individual patterns are

continuouslybeingadapted (e.g. Janelle,1969).Temporospatialactivitypatternsof

peoplearethusnostaticgivens,butmustbeseeninrelationtosocietalprocesses.

Suchprocessesarecharacterisedbybothtemporalandspatialorder.Ipositthat

these orders cannotbe seen apart,butmustbe seen in termsof temporospatial

order.Furthermore,Ipositthattheymustbeseenasbeingdynamic,thusintermsof


13/32


13

temporospatialordering.Suchordering iswhere thedomainofurbanand regionaldesignandplanningcomesintoplay.Moreover,withitsfundamentaltaskofsocietal

spatialandphysicalspatialorganisation,urbanandregionaldesignandplanninghas

asignificantroletoplayinsuchordering.IwillexplaininChapter2theworkingsof

fourmajor types ofmechanismsof temporospatial adaptation, already introduced

earlierthischapter,bywhichsuchorderingmaytakeplace:timespacecompression,

timespaceconvergence,timespaceindividualisationandtimespaceflexibilisation.

Figure1.4Awebconceptforquantificationoftheorderingcharacteristicsofactivitypatterns.

Source:Vidakovic(1988:122)asadaptedbyKlaasen(2004:70)

1.3.3 ApplicabilitygapThe applicability gap is the second key concept in this thesis.Although the termapplicability gap originates in design theory, and in particular in environment

behaviourstudies(Hillier,MusgroveandO'Sullivan,1972;Zeisel,1981),theconcept

ofagapbetweenknowledgeandactionisrecognisedthroughoutliteratureonplan

ning in general (FriedmannandHudson,1974) andurban and regionaldesign and

planning inparticular(HeideandWijnbelt,1994;Klaasen,2004).Muchofthe litera

turefocusesononeofaseriesofpossibleexplanationsoftheapplicabilitygapsoc

currence.IidentifyinChapter3threemajorcategoriesofexplanationsfortheappli

cability gap problem: structural aspects, related to the gap between professional

communitiesamongstthemselvesand/orintheirrelationtoacademiccommunities;

contentbased

aspects, related towhat is regarded relevantknowledge indifferent

domainsanddisciplines;andproceduralaspects,relatedtogapsinprocessesofplan


14/32

Timespacematters

14

ninganddesign.ThroughoutthethesisIalsolookatexplanationsfortheapplicabilitygapat a socalledmetalevel, i.e. referring tomethodological aspectsofmanaging

knowledgesuchaslaidbarebythedomainofsocalledknowledgeutilitystudies.

1.3.4 KnowledgeutilityTounderstandthethirdkeyconceptasIuseit,theconceptofknowledgeutility,it

helpstodistinguishitfromknowledgeuse.ThisisthethirdkeyconceptthatIexplain

here.Bothuseofknowledgeandutilityofknowledgeconcernprocessesofknowl

edgebeing transferredorknowledge travelling fromonecontext toanother.The

use of knowledge then is a relatively neutral termwithout a particular normativeconnotation.Anoftenuseddistinctionbetween typesofknowledgeuse is thatbe

tween instrumental useof knowledge, conceptual useof knowledge and symbolic

useof knowledge. Landry,Amara and Lamari (2001a),Amara,Ouimet and Landry

(2004)andBeyer(1997)provideindepthtreatmentsofthesecategories.Whenusing

distinctionsbetweendifferentusesofknowledgeanotheroftenmadedistinction is

the one between tacit and explicit knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995), each

implyingdifferentwaysofusingknowledge.

Utility of knowledge has a different connotation. Utility is a term originally

coinedineconomics,buttheuseoftheterminthecontexthereisdifferentfromits

economicmeaning, thoughassociatedwith thepossibility toquantifyandmeasureutilisation.Thus,adifferencecanbemadebetweentheuseofknowledgeandthe

usefulnessofknowledge.Thequestionofwhogetstodecidewhatisdeemeduseful

knowledgeinplanninganddesignprocessesisamatterofconcern,butisbeyondthe

scopeoftheworkathand.Itisimportanttonotethatusefulnessi.e.utilitycanbe

definedfromboththepointofviewofthesourceofknowledgeaswellaswhatcould

beconsideredareceivingendofaprocessofknowledgetransfer.

Knowledgeutilitystudiesinthecontextofplanningaremethodologicalinnature.

Othertermsusedtodescribethesetypesofstudiesareknowledgeinfluence,knowl

edgeuptake,knowledgetransfer,knowledgediffusionandknowledgemanagement

studies. One can distinguish between three major fields of study that compriseknowledgeutilitystudieswithadirectrelevance forurbanandregionaldesignand

planning.

Firstly, there are those studies, grounded in the social sciences (in particular

evaluationstudies),that focuson theuseofknowledge forpolicypurposes (Weiss,

1977;Weiss,1979;Dunn,1980;Dunn,1983;Dunn,Hicks,HegedusandvanRossum,

1990;HealeyandUnderwood,1978;Caplan,1979;Knorr,1976;Innes,1990;Landry,

Amara and Lamari, 2001b; Landry et al., 2001a; Landry, Lamari andAmara, 2003;

Amara et al., 2004). This category forms the largest bodyofworkon the subject.

Secondly,therearethosestudiesgrounded inthetechnicalordesignsciences,that

focuson

the

use

of

knowledge

for

design

purposes

(Heide

and

Wijnbelt,

1994;

Heide

andWijnbelt,1996;MeyandHeide,1997;Hamel,1990).Butinthissubdomainmost

researchdoesnotreferorapplytourbanorregionaldesign,butrathertoarchitec


15/32


15

turalortoindustrialdesign.Thirdly,thereisabodyofliteraturethatworksunderthebannerofevidencebasedpolicy(Davoudi,2006)orevidencebasedplanning(Krizek,

ForsythandSlotterback,2009;Nutley,WalterandDavies,2003).

Demonstratingthepossiblewiderangeofviewpoints,Weiss(1979)outlinedase

riesofmodelsofknowledgeusethatcanbecharacterisedasways inwhichknowl

edge travels inparticular contexts.Extendingon theworkbyWeisson theMany

MeaningsofResearchUtilisation,Iwillconsideragenericmodelofknowledgeutility

tobebuiltupof threedimensions;Weisssmodelsprovidingonedimensioncon

cerninghowknowledge travels in certain contextsplus twootherdimensionsof

knowledgeutility: strategies to improveon knowledgeutility and stagesof knowl

edgeutility(seeChapter4).

1.4 Relevance1.4.1 SocietalrelevanceBetween 2000 and 2002 theWetenschappelijke Raad voor Regeringsbeleid (WRR,

ScientificCouncilforGovernmentPolicy)publishedaseriesofreportsonthechang

ing relationbetween citiesand countryside in theNetherlands (Mommaas,Heuvel

and Knulst, 2000; Knaap, 2002; Scheele, 2001; AsbeekBrusse,Dalen andWissink,

2002).Thatseriesofreportsdemonstrateshowrelevant it is in lightofthesetof

disciplinaryandsocietalproblemsassetoutabovetopaymoreattentiontoknowl

edgeofthedailypatternsofactivitiesandmobilityofhouseholdswithinthedomain

ofurbanandregionaldesignandplanning.TheWRRdemonstratesthattherelevance

ofastudyonthatsubject liesmainly in the factthatchangingactivityandmobility

patternsofpeopleprovidemultiplechallengesforcontemporaryurbanandregional

designandplanningintermsof:

Thegrowthofthe leisure industryand itsspatialconsequences(Mommaasetal.,2000)(seealsoHaanetal.,2003);

Theneedfornewspatialconceptsandsteeringmechanisms forspatialdynamics in lightofchanges inactivityandmobilitybehaviourofpeopleand

companies(Knaap,2002)(seealsoBoelens,2009;Klaasen,2004);

The need to changemunicipal spatial policies in lightof societal changes,particularlywithregard to themismatchbetween the low levelofscaleof

municipalpolicies incontrast to the relativelyhigher levelofscaleofpeo

ples and companies activity patterns (Scheele,2001) (see alsoHoog and

Vermeulen,2009);

Thechangesinthewaydifferentscientificdisciplinesregardtherelationbetweensocietaldynamicsandspatialdynamics(AsbeekBrusseetal.,2002).


16/32

Timespacematters

16

Thesechallengeshavealreadyled,inpractice,tothedefinitionofanumberofdesigntaskswithin thedomainofurbanand regionaldesignandplanning. In theNether

lands,inparticular,thisneedstobeseeninthecontextofageneralshift,aroundthe

turnofthecentury, fromafocusonurbanexpansiontowardsthedesignandplan

ningtaskbeingfocusedon intensifieduseofbuiltupareas,themixingoffunctions,

and, particularly, the focus on transformation of urban areas rather than on

greenfielddevelopment(seeCammenandKlerk,2003).

Oneexample is the taskofdesigningpublicspaceandspatialconcentrationsof

urban services from theperspectiveofmultiple,diverseand intensive landuse (cf.

BSIKprogrammes Habiforum 20002004 Meervoudig Ruimtegebruik Multifunc

tionalandIntensiveLandUse,andHabiforum20042009VernieuwendRuimtegebruik

InnovativeLanduse)(Habiforum,2009;Gouw,HillebrandandZantinge,2006;Nio

andReijndorp,1997:238;Coolen,2004;LagendijkandWisserhof,1999aand1999b;

Tummers,2002;Harts,MaatandZeijlmansvanEmmichoven,1999;Rodenburgand

Nijkamp,2004).

Anotherexampleisthetaskofdesigningplacesaroundpublictransportnodesso

astoprovidepossibilitiesforsynergybetweenfunctionsandpossibilitiesforactivity

chainingforhouseholdsorinmoregeneralterms,inanswertotheincreasingdiver

sityofmobilityandactivitypatterns,thedesignofsocalledmobilityenvironments

(e.g. Bertolini and Dijst, 2000; Cammen and Klerk, 2003: 378; Boelens, Sanders,

Schwanen,Dijst

and

Verburg,

2005;

Rooij

and

Read,

2008).

Athird

example

iscon

cernedwithdesigningregionalvisionsfornetworksofcities(e.g.VROM,2001b).For

eachofthesedesigntasksitisnecessarytoincludethinkingaboutpeoplestemporo

spatialactivityandmobilitypatternswhiledesigningthephysicalandprogrammatic

fabricofcities.

Allthiscoincideswitharevivalofattentiontothe everyday (hetalledaagse) in

thedomainofurban and regionaldesign andplanning although this cannot be

consideredamainstreamdiscourse inthedomainofurbanandregionaldesignand

planning(Karsten,2009).Exemplaryofthatrevivalisaseriesofthemeissuesbythe

Dutch professional magazine Stedebouw & Ruimtelijke Ordening (S&RO) (NIROV,

2007a;2007b;2007c);aswellasthereappreciationof JaneJacobswork,exempli

fied in the Netherlands by the first Dutch translation of Death and Life of Great

American Cities (Jacobs, 1961 (2009)). Thework byArnold Reijndorp continues to

highlight the importanceofeveryday life,whichseeminglyescapestheattentionof

urbandesignersandplanners (Reijndorp,Kompier,Metaal,NioandTruijens,1998;

HajerandReijndorp,2001;Dudok,TeeffelenandReijndorp,2004;Reijndorp,2004;

Nio,ReijndorpandVeldhuis,2008).Also theworkofMarionRobertsdrawsexplicit

attentiontoeverydaylifeandinparticularitspeculiaritiesorhiddenaspectssuchas

thenighteconomy(RobertsandEldridge,2009).Thetemporalorganisationofsociety

alsoreceivesampleattentioninpopulararchitectureandpopulardesign,exemplified

inpublicationssuchasbySepandVerheije(2004)andMaas(2006).

Andalthoughthesesearchesforbetterurbanandregionaldesignandplanning

provide some interestingopenings, they are symptomaticof theproblem rather


17/32


17

thanexemplary for theemergenceofasolution tothenecessaryadaptationwithinthedomainofurbanandregionaldesignandplanningtocontemporaryprocessesof

timespace (re)organisation. LuukBoelensexplains that weplannershave failed to

translate themorebehavioural,collaborativeor relational,poststructuralplanning

theoriesintoconvincing,decisiveandsustainablepractices(Boelens,2009:185).

In light of these design tasks, the societal developments as I described them

abovecannotandshouldnotbeseenseparatefromthedebateonthecoreofstede

bouwkunde.Thisisnotonlybecausetheorganisationoftimeandspaceincontempo

rarysociety ischangingandtransformations incontemporarycitiesareunavoidable

asaresult.Inmyview,thephysicallayoutofcitiescannotbemeaningfullyseparated

inurbanplanningfromthepatternsofuseofurbanplacesinbothtimeandspace.Itis toaccommodate temporospatialactivitypatterns thaturbandesignersandplan

nersconcern themselveswith thephysical layoutof thecity.But that temporaldi

mension has been largely neglected in urban design and planning (Klaasen, 2004;

Klaasen,2005b;NioandReijndorp,1997;Bonfiglioli,2004).Tocontributetoliveable

cities,knowledgeofthedaily,weekly,monthlyandyearlytemporalandspatialpat

ternsofuseinurbanenvironmentsneedstobeembeddedinthebodyofknowledge

ofurbanandregionaldesignandplanningmorethanitisnow.

1.4.2 Fundamentalquestionsonpeople,timeandspaceAsintroducedatthestart,twofundamentalquestionsprovidetheintellectualstart

ingpointsforthisthesis.Thefirstquestionwasraisedaround1970byTorstenHger

strand,ageographer:WhataboutPeople inRegionalScience? (Hgerstrand,1970)

Thecoreofhisargumentwasthatitwasnecessarytodevelopadetailedunderstand

ingofpeoplesdaytodaybehaviour intermsof their temporospatialpatternsof

activityandmobilityasabasis forplanning rather thangeneralisedeconomicor

sociologicaltheories(cf.Pred,1977)(seeFigure1.5;seeChapter2).Thesecondques

tionwasaskedbyKevinLynch,urbandesignerandplanner, in1976:WhatTime is

thisPlace? (Lynch,1972).Thecoreofhisargumentwas that,within thedomainof

urbanandregionaldesignandplanning, it isnecessarytopayattentiontotherelationbetweentimeandspaceasperceivedbypeopleandthetemporalorganisation

ofspacesastheyareinscribedinurbanenvironments.

IarguethatthetwoquestionsputforwardbyLynchandbyHgerstrandneedto

berelatedtoeachotheraswellasbevaluedforthecomplexityoftheirimplications.

Ialsoarguethatthishassofarnotbeendonesufficientlywithinthedomainofurban

andregionaldesignandplanning.Still, Iwillnotbethefirst inthedomainofurban

andregionaldesignandplanningtograpplewiththeproblemoftimeandpeoplein

termsof temporospatialactivitypatterns. Iwillsummarise threepreviousattempts

todojustthatbelow.Firstly,Boelensworkdemonstratestheimportanceoftheoris

ingandconceptualisingabouttimeandspaceasdoneby,forexample,AnthonyGid

dens,NigelThrift,ManuelCastellsandDavidHarvey(Boelens,2009;Boelens,2010)

(cf.AsbeekBrusseetal.,2002)(seeChapter2).Butsuchtheorisationdoesnotneces


18/32

Timespacematters

18

sarilybringsonecloser to findingways toembed timemore firmly inurbandesignthinkingapartfromraisingawarenessandraisingasenseofurgencythatsomeof

thecore ideasaboutcities inthedomainofurbanandregionaldesignandplanning

thathavebeenprevalentoverthelastdecadeswillnotsufficeforthe21stcentury.

Despitedevelopingan interesting framework for innovatingpractices in thedo

mainofurbanandregionaldesignandplanning,Boelensfailstofundamentallyinte

gratetimeandspaceinhistheoryonplanning.Whileheprovidesinthissensehighly

relevant case material from practice in particular the case of the Stedenbaan

(Boelens,2009:Box5.1;Boelensetal.,2005)(cf.KlaasenandRadema,1987;Radema

andKlaasen,1986),herefrainsfromreturningtothequestionoftimeandspace in

thesubstantiveportionofhistheory.

Figure1.5Hgerstrands timespace cube conceptprovidesanannotation system tovisualise

thecomplex

relation

between

temporospatial

behaviour

of

people

and

the

physical

environ

ment.Source:Parkes,ThriftandCarlstein(1978)

Dreweincontrasthighlightsthetheoreticalimportanceoftimeinrelationtospaceas

he findsanotionof time integral to theoryonnetworkurbanism,buildingon the

workbyGabrielDupuy (Drewe,2004;Drewe,2005b;Drewe,2005a;Dupuy, 1991;

Dupuyetal.,2008).Drewearguesthattounderstandthecomplexityofcities inthe

networksociety, it is important tohighlight the temporaldimensionofurbansys

tems in termsof timeuseof individualpeopleaswellas in termsof thecollective

structuresoftimeinsociety.However,hisworkremainsonanabstractlevelandasa

result regrettably remained tooccupy an academicniche inurbanplanning in the

Netherlands.Still,hepointsthewayforfurtherresearchtotheworkofSandraBon


19/32


19

figlioli(BonfiglioliandMareggi,1997),whohasvividlyarguedsincethe1980stoseecities as temporal objects. She has suggested to conceptualise cities in terms of

chronotopes,literallytimeplaces.Herworkhasbeenidentifiedbyothersaswellfor

havingpotential(NioandReijndorp,1997;GrahamandHealey,1999),butthework

hasseeminglyremainedsomewhatparochialandhasonlybeentranslated intoEng

lish toa limiteddegree.Althoughherapproachhasbeen institutionalised in Italian

timepoliciesanddispersedinaEuropeannetworkofresearchers,herapproachhas

notbeen able to really influencemainstreamurbanplanning. Still,wemightdraw

morelessonsfromherworkthansofarhasbeendone.(SeeChapter6)

IntheNetherlandsMargotMeywasthefirst,andoneoffewtodate,toattempta

concretetranslationofresearchontimeusetomakingurbandesignsforneighbourhoods inanattempttoovercometheapparent applicabilitygap(thegapbetween

researchanddesign)(Mey,1994;Mey,1996;MeyandHeide,1997).Herworkshould

beseen inthecontextofabodyofworkgrounded inthetheoryoftimegeography

(seeChapter2). Time geographical theory hashad quite some follow up inDutch

academicresearch(e.g.Vidakovic,1980;Vidakovic,1981;Vidakovic,1988;Dijstand

Vidakovi,1997;DijstandVidakovic,2000;DroogleeverFortuijn,Hietbrink,Karsten

and Rijkes, 1987; Dijst, 1995; Dijst, 1999; Arentze, Dijst, Dugundji, Joh, Kapoen,

Krygsman,MaatandTimmermans,2001;Dietvorst,1995;Dietvorst,1994).However,

timegeographywasandisseldomusedbyurbandesignersorinthecontextofurban

designtasks.

Mey

developed

and

defended

the

argument

that

itispossible

to

trans

lateempiricalstudiesontimeusetoaconcreteurbandesignbydevelopingtypical

userprofiles inherPhDthesis (Mey,1994)andaresearchreportforPRO(Athen

Dutch instituteforprogrammingpolicyresearch)(Mey,1996),butherworkhasnot

been followedup since.As far as isknown,only LuukBoelenshasattemptedone

othersuchstudy inDutchurbanplanning(Boelensetal.,2005). Inaddition,forthe

domainof tourism and recreation planning there are some examples to be found

based on the touristrecreationcomplex concept developed by Adri Dietvorst at

WageningenUniversity (Dietvorst,1989).However, theseconcernproductdevelop

mentfortourismormanagementoftouristareasratherthanphysicalspatialdesign

andplanning.

Acknowledgingboththedesirabilityaswellastheapparentdifficultyofembed

dingknowledgeoftemporospatialactivitypatternsofpeople inurbanandregional

design andplanning, InaKlaasen has argued that, todealwith thatdifficulty, it is

necessarytoliterallyputtimeinthepicture,amongstotherfactors(Klaasen,2005b).

Her argument is that the invisibility of such knowledge for urban designers and

plannersmight be located in the fact that urban designers and planners primarily

reasonfromspatialmodels;thesecanonlyindirectlydepicttime.Andthatclaimmay

indeedbevalid, though it isembedded inamuchwiderproblem,asChapter3will

demonstrate.However,Klaasenssolutionofembeddingknowledgeoftemporospa

tialactivitypatternsofpeople inspatialorganisationprinciples (seeKlaasen,2004)

remainsatthesurfaceofwhatincorporatingtimeinnotionsofspacemayimplicate

(seeChapter2).Moreover,inrecentyears,somecriticismhasalsoarisenontheuse


20/32

Timespacematters

20

ofsuchspatialorganisationprinciples inurbanand regionaldesignandplanningasgivens (seee.g.Healey,2007:228,denoting themas spatialorderingprinciples).

Althoughthatcritiqueinmyviewdoesnotdisqualifythepossibilityofdeveloping

suchprinciples,thecritiquedoesprovidegroundforexamininghowknowledgeem

bedded in thoseprinciplesgetspositionedwithin thebodyof knowledgeofurban

andregionaldesignandplanning.

1.4.3 ScientificrelevanceAlthoughMey, Boelens and Klaasen have thus developed approaches for applying

knowledgeoftemporospatialactivitypatternsofpeopleinthedomainofurbanandregionaldesignandplanning (Mey,1994;Mey,1996;Boelensetal.,2005;Boelens,

2009;Klaasen,2004;Klaasen,2005b),theseapproacheshavenotbeenappropriated

inmainstreamurbanandregionaldesignandplanning.So,althoughitisinprinciple

possible,knowledgeof temporospatialactivityandmobilitypatternsofpeoplejust

simplydoesnotgettranslatedintourbanandregionaldesignandplanningpractice.

Twoareasofparticularinterestemerge.Ontheonehand,thereisnolargebody

of literatureontemporospatialactivityandmobilitypatternsasan intricatecompo

nentofurbanandregionaldesignandplanning.Ontheotherhand,thereseemsto

beaproblemofapplicabilityofempiricalknowledgeofsuchpatterns inthemaking

ofurbandesignandplans.Iaimtocontributetoboththeseareasof interest.Todoso,IbasethetheoreticalfoundationofthisthesisontwoelementsoftheworkbyIna

Klaasenondevelopingurbanandregionaldesignandplanningasascience(Klaasen,

2004). Firstly, I adopt her idea that the adherence to a creativecraft approach to

urbanandregionaldesignandplanningcultivatesasocalledapplicabilitygapwhich

hinders the development of a scientific body of knowledge in urban and regional

designandplanning.ThetermapplicabilitygapwaslabelledbyHillier,Musgroveand

OSullivan to describe the gap between empirical research and the synthesis of

knowledge, the latterbeingcharacteristicofdesigning (Hillieretal.,1972).Klaasen

considerstheapplicabilitygapasoneaspectofherbroadertheoreticalworkonde

velopingascientificbodyofknowledgeofurbanand regionaldesignandplanning.Heruseoftheconceptoftheapplicabilitygapisbasedonhypothesesonthebehav

iourof designers as theyhave beendeveloped inparticular in researchon design

processes(e.g.Cross,2001;Hamel,1990).Secondly, Iadoptthe ideathatthestruc

turally lacking temporaldimension in the languageandcognitiveschemesofurban

designers leadstotheunderestimationoftherelevanceofthetemporospatialchar

acteristicsofactivitypatternsofpeople(Klaasen,2004:63;Klaasen,2005b).Klaasen

developstheideathatthisisforanimportantpartduetothedifferencebetweenthe

staticspatialmodels thatdesignersuseand thedynamic realitygovernedbyspace

andtimeinwhichtheyoperate.AnotheraspectthatKlaasen identifies,isthediffer

enceinthedominantgrainofobservationoftimeintransformationprocesses(years,

decades) and the dominant temporal grain of observation for activity patterns of

people(days,weeks)


21/32


21

WhereKlaasenconsequentlyfocusesonthedevelopmentofsubstantivecontentforascientificbodyofknowledgeforurbanandregionaldesign(Klaasen,2004),Iwill

focusonexploringandtheorisingthesetwo interrelated,but inmyview lessdevel

opedelementsofherwork.Ontheonehand,thisisbecauseKlaasensworkinitially

refrains fromapproaching theproblemof theapplicabilitygap inall its complexity

(seeChapter3).Ontheotherhand,thisisbecauseherworkinmyviewmissesa

comprehensiveframingofthe implicationsofputtingthenotionofactivitypatterns

inacentralpositioninhernotionoftimespace(seeChapter2).Thisthesiswillaimat

extending the scientificbodyofknowledge forwhichKlaasen sketches theoutline

suchthatitwillbeinclusiveofthesenotions.

1.5 Aimandresearchquestions1.5.1 AimThegeneralaimof this thesis is toexplorenewpossibilities forembeddingknowl

edgeabouttemporospatialactivityandmobilitybehaviourofpeopleinthedomainof

urbanandregionaldesignandplanning.WiththisexplorationIwanttocontributeto

thescientificbodyofknowledgeofurbanandregionaldesignandplanningassetout

byKlaasen(2004).Iaimtodosowiththehelpoftwomajorbuildingblocks.Onthe

one hand, based on an intricate understanding of the applicability gap problem

(Chapter3), theworkoperationalises theapplicabilitygapproblem in termsof the

useandutilityofknowledge (Chapter4).On theotherhand, Ioperationalise the

substantive relation between temporospatial activitypatternsofpeople and the

temporospatialorganisationofurbanareasandregions(Chapter2).

1.5.2 ResearchquestionsFollowingfromtheproblemstatementthetwomaininterrelatedresearchquestions

are:

Inwhatwaycanthetemporospatialorderingofurbansystemsinparticular

of temporospatialactivitypatternsofpeoplebeunderstood soas toact

upon that understanding in the domain of urban and regional design and

planning?

and

Whatisthepotentialofparticularapproachestocontributetoresolvingthe

applicabilitygapproblem;approachesthataimtoprovideanunderstanding

oftemporospatial

activity

patterns

of

people

from

adesign

and

planning

per

spective?


22/32

Timespacematters

22

In the next section Iwill explain how Iwill use the analysis of two particular approachestoexplorethecentralproblem.Themainresearchquestionsareunravelled

intoaseriesofsubquestionsthatneedtobeanswered intheanalysisofparticular

approachesthatatfirstsightshowpotentialtoresolvetheapplicabilitygapproblem:

Whichapproaches,atfirst sight, showpotential to contribute to resolvingthe applicability gapproblem by bridging knowledge domains considering

theorderingoftimeandtheorderingofspacerespectively?

Whichstrategiestoembedknowledgeoftemporospatialpatternsofpeopleareputforwardbyparticularapproaches combiningactivitiesof research,

planningand

design?

Inwhatwayistheorderingoftimespaceconsideredintheframingofdesignandplanningtaskswithinparticularapproaches?

Whataspectsoftheapplicabilitygapproblemaretackledbyparticularapproaches?

Combiningtheanswerstothethreequestionsdirectlyabove,canlessonsfortackling the applicability gapproblem can be derivedfromparticular ap

proaches?Ifso,whichlessons?

Whichaspectsofthetwoapproacheshelpandwhichdonthelptotackletheapplicabilitygapproblem?

Workingfromthefindingsontheapproaches,whatfurtherresearch isnecessarytoembedknowledgeoftemporospatialactivitypatternsofpeople in

themakingofurbanandregionaldesignsandplans?

Thefirstsubquestion isansweredinthischapter;thefollowingthreesubquestions

areaddressedintheconclusionsofthedescriptiveChapters5and6.Theremaining

seriesofquestionsareaddressedinChapter7.

1.6 Researchstrategyandselectionprocess1.6.1 TheprinciplebehindselectingapproachestostudyOverthelastdecades,severalapproachesthatshowpotentialforresolvingtheappli

cabilitygapproblemhaveemerged.Twoof thoseapproaches thatemerged in the

1990sandearly2000shavebeenselectedforanalysis inthisthesis.Thedescription

ofthewayinwhichtheyhavetriedandthedegreetowhichtheyhavesucceeded

andwhy they haveor have not to embed knowledge of temporospatial activity

patternsofpeople inurbanandregionaldesignandplanningformsthecoreofthis

thesis.

Ihavechosentostudytwoapproachesthatexemplifyparticularproblemsolution

sets forembeddingknowledgeofactivitypatternsofpeople inurbanand regional

designandplanning:theapplicationoftrackingstudiesinurbanandregionaldesign


23/32


23

(Chapter5)andthesocalledtimesofthecityapproach(Chapter6).Boththeseapproaches show, on first sight, potential to provide lessons for embedding such

knowledgeinthepracticesofthedomainofurbanandregionaldesignandplanning.

The two approaches represent two different viewpoints on knowledge of activity

patternsofpeople.Both showhow the focuson spatialpatterns inurbanand re

gionaldesignandplanningmaybeextendedsoastoincludethenotionoftime.The

one viewpoint focuses on knowledge about the particular weblike and rhythmic

patternsofactivitiesandemphasises the roleofempiricalknowledgeabout them.

The other approach focuses on the constraints within which those activities may

unfoldandemphasisestheroleofknowledgeaboutdesignandplanning.

Theseviewpointsareexpectedtoofferrivalstrategiesfortacklingtheapplicabilitygapproblem.Thesemaycomplementeachother,butmayalsodemonstrateeach

othersweaknesses.Assuch,thecompilingofthefindingsfromthetwoapproaches,

and viewing them against the theoretical framework built in Chapters 2, 3 and 4,

providesaplausiblebasetosuggestfurtherresearchonimprovingtheuseofknowl

edgeoftemporospatialactivitypatternsofpeople inurbanandregionaldesignand

planning.

1.6.2 OnthesearchprocessandthestructuringoffindingsTheresultsofthisstudyhaveemergedfromaniterative,explorativesearchprocess.Theentrypoint formysearchwasthebodyofempiricalknowledgeontherelation

betweenphysical urban structures and activity patternsof people. I found several

bodiesof literature, the largestwas thaton the relationbetweenurban form and

travelbehaviour,whichtriedexplicitlytolinkcharacteristicsofthelayoutofcitiesto

howactivitypatternsofpeoplegetconstituted.Howeverthequestionthenemerged

whysuchknowledgewashardlyusedalreadywhileitwasreadilyavailable?

Toaddressthatquestion,andsettingthebase lineforthestudy, I identifiedthe

applicabilitygapproblem(seesection1.3andChapter3). I initiallyfocusedmyre

searchon instruments thatmighthelp in bridging the gap. The socalled medium

shiftgotmyparticularattention:themomentoftranslationofnumericalorverbalinformationintovisualinformationasacrucialstepindesignprocesses.Byrevisiting

thebodyof literatureon theoryandpracticeof thedomainofurbanand regional

designandplanning Irealisedthattheapplicabilitygapproblem Ihadbeendealing

withwas fundamental tothatdisciplineandprofession.Thegapbetweenempirical

knowledge and themakingof urbandesigns andplanswas treated in aparticular

bodyof literature linkingorganisational theory,design theoryandplanning theory:

knowledgeusestudiesorknowledgeutilitystudies.

Ichosetobuildthestudyprimarilyaroundamorequalitativemethodofresearch

basedon literaturestudy.This literaturestudy Isupportedby interviewsandgroup

meetings to collect informationonparticular topics.Theoryonurbanand regional

designandplanningaswellason timespacecame toplayamuchmore important

partinthestudy.IsearchedforalevelofanalysisonwhichIcouldshowtheintrica


24/32

Timespacematters

24

ciesoftheapplicabilitygapproblem.Ifoundthislevelofanalysisintheidentificationofdifferentapproachesofwhich I selected two to study inmoredetail.Theseap

proaches,asdistinguishableentities,alsoformthecorechaptersofthethesisitself.

1.6.3 ThechoiceofapproachesTheapproachesanalysedinthisthesisarechosensothattheycovertwofundamen

talpropertiesoftheconceptoftemporospatialactivitypatternsofpeople:thetem

porospatialpatternsthemselvesandtheconstraintstowhichpeoplearesubjectedin

producing those patterns. These roughlymatchwith two fundamentally different

viewpointswithin studiesofactivitybehaviour: thechoicebasedapproachand theconstraintsbased approach (see Chapter 2).Moreover, these two viewpoints also

enlightenthetwosidesoftheapplicabilitygapproblem,eachstartingon theother

end:empiricalknowledgeaboutactivitybehaviourontheonehandanddesignand

planningontheother.Thefinalchoiceofapproacheshasbeentheresultofanitera

tive,explorativeresearchprocess(seesections1.6.2and1.7).

Thefirstapproachcentresonanonlyrecentlyinthelasttenyearsdeveloped

approach for the collection and processingof data on temporospatial activity and

mobilitybehaviour:theuseoftrackingtechnologiessuchasGPS(GlobalPositioning

System)andmobilephonepositioning.Trackingtechnologies,offeringstateoftheart

researchtechniques,isalogicalchoiceforthisstudyasresearchintotheworkingsofactivitysystemsisatthebaseofthinkingaboutpeoplestemporospatialactivityand

mobility behaviour in the context of urban and regional design and planning (see

Chapter2).Themajorconcerninthechapterontrackingtechnologiesisifthisnovel

approachenablesresearchersanddesignerstogetbeyondtheapplicabilitygapprob

lem.Theapproachcanbeconsiderednovelforitextendsbeyondbeingjustanother

researchtechniquethatreplacespaperdiariesforstudyingactivitybehaviour.Iposit

thatthe introductionoftrackingtechnologiesmayfundamentallychangesomething

intheepistemologyofactivitybehaviourresearch.Howandtowhatdegree,though,

isamatterofdebate.

Thesecondapproachpicksuponthesuggestionthatthesocalledtimesofthecity approach,which conceptualises cities as chronotopes, mayprovideways for

ward in urban and regional design and planning for embedding a concern for the

smallgrainsof timesuchasdaysandweeks.Suchgrainsarecharacteristic forpeo

ples activity and mobility behaviour. The approach, primarily developed through

French,Germanand Italianactionresearchpractices, isanalysedwith regard to its

theorisationofproblemsolutionsetsbeingconsideredasplanningendeavoursand

theanalyticalandactionorientedresearch,designandplanningstrategiesthatcon

stitutetheapproach.Theselectionofthisapproach isprimarily,althoughnotexclu

sively,basedonPaulDrewesexpectationsof theapproach: it seems todeliveran

important step forward inbringingactivitypatternsofpeople to the fore inurban

andregionaldesignandplanning(Drewe,2004):


25/32


25

It provides starting points for the development of new spatial conceptsbasedontheunderlyingconceptofthepostindustrialcity (i.e.basedona

servicebasedandknowledgeeconomy);

Itprovidesaframeworkformultidisciplinaryscientificreflectiononcontemporaryurbandesignandplanningleadingtoaninnovativeproblemformula

tionbasedonatemporaldescriptionofspatialphenomena;and

Itprovidesconcretemethods for localpoliticalprocessessuchassocalledmultipartnertablesofcodesign,mobilitypactsandavisual languagesup

portingtheseprocessesintheformofsocalledchronotopicmaps

1.6.4 DemarcatingtheapproachesRatherthandemarcatingtheapproachesbyaconcretesituatedpractice,Ihavecho

senasa firststep todefinetheapproachesbyepisodescharacterisedbythe intro

ductionofanewwayof framingand/or tacklinganurbanand regionaldesignand

planningproblemanapproachthatillustratestheproblematicoftheapplicabil

itygap.Suchanepisodecanbeanalysedby lookingattheconstellationofpractices

andpublications thatareassociatedwith theapproach.Theperiod from1990on

wards isofparticular interestaswasdemonstratedat thestartof thischapterand

theapproachesareselectedfromthisperiod.

Thesecondsteptodemarcatetheapproachesisintermsoftheirrelationalmapofknowledge, i.e. thenetworkofknowledgeexperts involved (seeChapter4).But

involved inwhat?Theapproacheshavebeen identifiedbynetworksthatareorgan

isedaroundanidentifiableresearch,planningand/ordesignapproachthatisofrele

vance to theproblem statement.Often approaches get reduced to discourseor

stories, i.e. languagebasedendeavours largelystrippedofsubstantiveaspects.But

such a conceptualisation wouldnot allow for abroadermappingof the subjectat

hand. It ismorehelpfultodefine approaches indirectly intermsofthenetworkof

expertssupportingtheapproach,aswellasdirectlyintermsofwhatcouldbecalled

the programof theapproach. Inparticular, Iamchoosingasa startingpointnet

worksofexperts thatorganise themselvesaroundcertainknowledgestrategiesoccupyingonlypartsoftheknowledgedomainofurbanandregionaldesignandplan

ning,i.e.withintherelationalknowledgescheme(seeChapters3and4,Table3.3).

InbothapproachesofChapters5and6,agroupornetworkofprofessionalsiscom

mittedtochangingsomefundamentalpropertyoftheknowledgedomainbyrefram

ingthetypeofknowledgeand/ormannerofdealingwithknowledgeofactivityand

mobilitybehaviourofpeople.

However,notallnetworksofexpertsare thesame.PeterHaassdistinctionbe

tweendifferenttypesofnetworksofexperts ishelpfulhere(Haas,1992).Notethat

Haassaimwastodistinguishepistemiccommunitiesfromothergroups.Epistemic

communitiesare

networks

of

professionals

with

recognised

expertise

and

compe

tenceinaparticulardomain,andanauthoritativeclaimtopolicyrelevantknowledge


26/32

Timespacematters

26

withinthatdomainor issuearea(Haas,1992:3).Basedondistinguishinggroupsofexpertsaccording tothedegreetowhichtheysharesocalledcausalbeliefs,princi

pledbeliefs, interestsandconsensuson theirknowledgebase,hedistinguishesbe

tweenfivetypesofgroups:

(a) Epistemiccommunities(cf.theconceptofpolicycommunities;seeHealey,2007:177178),

(b)Interestgroupsandsocialmovements(cf.theconceptsof regimenetworks;MossbergerandStoker,2001),

(c)Disciplinesandprofessions,(d)Legislatorsandbureaucraticagencies.(e)Bureaucraticcoalitions.

Iamexcluding frommyanalysis thegroupsconsistingexclusivelyof legislatorsand

agencies.ThegroupofbureaucraticcoalitionsistheoddoneoutinHaasswork;the

conceptcommunitiesofpractice(Wenger,McDermottandSnyder,2002)concern

ing a similar type of network ismore apt here. Such communities and epistemic

communitieshelphereindemarcatingtheapproaches,while(b)and(c)willshowto

be related to particular strategies for enhancing knowledge utility within the ap

proaches.

1.6.5 WhatwouldhavebeenalternativeresearchstrategiesSeveraldirectionsforresearchhavebeenconsideredtotackletheresearchquestion

anditssubquestionsasalternativestotheresearchstrategyfinallychosen:

Usingempiricalresearchresultsontemporospatialactivitypatternsofpeople and applying this in a concrete urban design so as to updateMargot

Meysapproachtocontemporaryactivitypatterns;

Aresearchbydesignapproach(asdefinedbyKlaasen,2004)focusingonthedevelopmentof spatialorganisationprinciplesderived from knowledgeoftemporospatialactivitypatternsofpeople;

Adesignresearchapproach that focusesonstudying (measuring)thewaysinwhichindividualdesignersorateamofdesignersdealswithapredefined

designtask(cf.Hamel,1990);

Aknowledgeutilityapproach studying the typesofand theways inwhichknowledgeisbeingusedinthemakingofanurbandesignorplan.

Iwillbrieflyaddressthecentralweaknessesandstrengthsofthesealternativestrate

giesand reasonswhy theyhavenotbeenchosen.The firstdirectionhasnotbeen

chosenfor

anumber

of

reasons.

Although

the

research

strategy

has

been

tested

beforeanditisseeminglypossibletoproduceresultsintermsofurbandesigns,itis


27/32


27

not likely that thisstrategywouldnow lead toahigherdegreeofappropriationofknowledgeof temporospatialactivityandmobilitypatternsofpeoplebyurbande

signers than after the first attempts.Moreover, the problems associatedwith the

applicabilitygaparenotfundamentallybeingsolvedbythisstrategy.Abetterunder

standingofpeoplesactivitypatternsandoftherelationbetweentheseactivitypat

terns and the structureof thebuilt environmentdonot automatically lead to the

appropriationofsuchknowledgebyurbandesigners.

Amoredesignbasedstrategy to tackle theproblemassuggestedby thesubse

quenttwooptionsresearchbydesignordesignresearchwouldpossiblyprovide

resultsthatwouldbemoreeasilyappropriatedbyurbandesigners.However,before

itwouldbepossibletotackletheproblemathandaseitheradesignresearchproblem or a researchbydesign problem, it is first necessary to answer a number of

questionsaboutwhatactuallytoappropriatethen.

Suchquestionsmightbedevelopedandpossiblyansweredusinganexplorative

strategy based on a research strategy akin to that of knowledge utility studies.

Knowledgeutilitystudiesareaneclectic fieldof studyandhaveemergedafter the

comprehensive, cybernetic approach to urban and regional design and planning

proved to collapseunder itsownweight at theendof the1970s (seeChapter3).

Knowledge utility studies concern themselves with the way in which knowledge

travels fromonedomain toanother.Thereare several reasonswhy this strategy

seemsmore

apt

here

than

the

other

strategies

described

in

this

section,

but

there

are

somecriticalremarkstobemadeaswell.

In knowledge utility studies researchers generally try to answer their research

questionsbyobserving theuseand transferofknowledge inapracticebasedcase

environment.Thisallowsforcleardemarcationofcasesintermsofcasestudymeth

odology.However,itisdifficulttoassesstheuseofaparticularbodyofknowledgein

suchasettingandmoststudiesthereforeratherfocusontheclassificationoftypesof

knowledgeused.Moreover,fewexamplesofpracticesareactuallyavailableinwhich

to study the integration of knowledgeof activity patterns of people in urban and

regionaldesignandplanning.As it isdifficultto identify ifsuch integrationwilltake

place inapractice case, itwas thereforenecessary to choose anddelimitunitsof

studyinanotherwaythaniscustominknowledgeutilitystudies.

1.7 Onresearchmethodandtechnique1.7.1 OnmethodFor thedescriptionandanalysisofparticularapproaches to research,planningand

design Ihaveusedatechniqueakin toatechniquegenerallyused incasestudyre

search;eventhoughthisstudycannotbecharacterisedassuch.Toanalysethetwo

different approaches the same protocol was used: (a) structuring the approachesalongthe linesofaspectsoftheapplicabilitygap; (b)evaluatingthemagainst time


28/32

Timespacematters

28

space theory, and (c) evaluating them against the three dimensions of knowledgeutility. Theory building and the use of theory as a framework for evaluation has

playedan importantrole insettingupthisprotocol(seesection1.7.2).Thestudy is

akintoanembedded,multiplecasestudyaseachanalysedapproachcontainsmulti

ple projects or cases embedded in the approach.However, as I also evaluate the

globalnatureof the twoapproaches theresearchdesignof thestudyhasalsoele

mentsofholisticcasestudydesign (Yin,2009:46).Thestudy isnotmeant tobea

comparativestudyofthetwoapproaches.Theyarebothevaluatedagainstthetheo

reticalframework,notagainsteachother.Still,theydocomplementeachotherand

inChapter7Iwillthereforedrawconclusionsbasedonthecompiledfindingsofboth

analyticalchapters.Themethod isbased largelyon thesystematicstudyofdocumentationoneach

particularapproachandtheevaluationoftheirprinciplesanduseinpracticeagainst

thetheoreticalframework.Theliteraturestudydeskresearchhasbeencombined

withparticipation in thesetupofempiricalresearchandeducationalpilotprojects

ledbyothers(seesection1.7.3).Ratherthantheempiricalwork,thesetupandde

velopmentofprojectssubsequentlyservedasembedded caseswithintheanalysis

of,inparticular,thetrackingbasedapproach.Thestudyisthusatypicalinthesense

thatitdoesnotcontainempiricalfieldwork.

1.7.2

On

the

use

of

theory

The theoretical frameworkof the studyhas twomajorcomponents: theoryon the

applicabilitygapproblemandtheoryontimespace,ormoreparticulartemporospa

tialordering.Thesecomponentscanbeseenasrepresenting,respectively,theoryof

urbanandregionaldesign,andplanningandtheoryinurbanandregionaldesignand

planning (cf. Faludi, 1973). I hold that these components cannot be meaningfully

separatedandneed tobeseen inrelation toeachother.Thispointofview issup

portedbyreferringtotheoryonthesocalledmaterialobjectofurbanandregional

designandplanning(Hidding,2006;seesection1.3).

Thetheoryontheapplicabilitygapproblemneedstobeseenasanexplanatorytheory. Itexplainswhyknowledgeon temporospatialactivitypatternsofpeople is

difficulttouseinurbanandregionaldesignandplanning.Myaimhereisnottotest

the theorydirectly,but toexamineapproacheswithregard to thedegree towhich

theypayattentiontodifferentexplanations.Thesuppositionhereisthatthereisnot

onesimpleexplanationtotheapplicabilitygapproblem,butthatthere isalwaysan

amalgamofexplanations.

Thetheoryon timespacethat Iuse in thisstudy leanson grand theory, inpar

ticularsocialtheorywithageographiccomponent.Forthisthesissuchtheoryhelps

to identify links between societal processes and transformations in the physical

spatialorganisationofcities;andthus,toidentifywhichrolethedomainofurbanand

regionaldesignandplanningmayplay inaccommodating(changes in)societalproc


29/32


29

esses.Again,mymajorconcernisthedegreetowhichapproachesdealwiththeintricacyoftimespacethatthetheorydemonstratestoberelevant.

Extending on the theoretical framework on the applicability gap, theory on

knowledgeuseandknowledgeutilityplaysadifferentrole inthisthesis.Fromsuch

theory Ihavederivedaconceptualmodelofhow theuseofknowledge workson

three dimensions of knowledge utility: (a) how does knowledge travel in certain

contexts, (b)whichstrategies toenhanceknowledgeutilityareused,and (c)which

stagesofknowledgeutilitycanbedistinguished.ToevaluatetheapproachesofChap

ters5and6,Iconfrontthemwiththisthreedimensionalmodelofknowledgeutility.

Thebodiesoftheoryontheapplicabilitygapandontimespacedeliverindicators

and criteria for that evaluation. The first two dimensions of the knowledge utilitymodelare combined inaconceptualgrid.Thatgrid isused todrawconclusions in

each chapter on a particular approach. Based on these conclusions, in Chapter 7,

whichcontainsgeneralconclusions,thethirddimensionisusedtoidentifystrengths,

weaknessesandwaysforward.

1.7.3 OnthesearchforandtreatmentofsourcematerialAstheuseoftrackingtechnologiesinurbanandregionaldesignandplanning(Chap

ter5)concernsarelativelynew fieldofstudy inparticular thesearch for itsrele

vance in thedomainofurbanandregionaldesignandplanningthere isrelativelylittledocumentationavailable.Thedocumentationthat isavailableoftenshowsthe

experimental,trialanderrortypeofattemptsdevelopedoutsidedisciplinaryoraca

demicconstraintsandthusdoesnotnecessarilyalwaysanswertoacademicorhighly

professional rigor.Still, Ihaveattempted to relymostlyon thoseaccounts thatdo

displaysomerigorandsignsofexternalreview.InexampleswheretheseareabsentI

relyon lessformalaccountsandreportsofexperimentsusingtrackingtechnologies.

As the people and projectswithin the domain of information visualisation have a

largeonlinewebpresence,Ihavereliedonfindingaccountsontrackingvisualisations

foralargepartthroughonlinesearchingandnetworking.Ihaveavoideddelvinginto

thebodyofliteraturethatsolelyattemptstosolvetechnicalissuesoftrackingstudies,although Ihave includedsomeaccountsthatprimarilyfocusontechnical issuesbut

dodisplayadirectinterestforthedomainofapplicationathand.

Thesourcesthatpresentanaccountofpilotstudiesusingtrackingtechnologies,

inwhich Ihavebeendirectlyor indirectlybeen involved,consistmostlyof finalised

researchreportsorstudentreports,butduetotimeconstraintsIhavealsouseddraft

reportsandpreliminaryresearchresultstofill insomeofthegaps.Creditsformuch

ofthatmaterialshouldgotothosepeoplethathavebeeninvolvedinthisresearch,in

particular Stefan van derSpek, Frank vanderHoeven,Otto Trienekens,Remcode

Haan and Peter de Bois. When I was directly involved in the pilot studies in

particular I primarily contributed to the shaping of the research questions and

researchsetup.Lastly,oneothersourceneedstobemadeexplicit.Thequalitative

materialresultingfromroundtableandplenarydiscussionsattheUrbanismonTrack


30/32

Timespacematters

30

eventcontributedmuchtoaninitialframingoftheanalysis(SchaickandSpek,2007;Schaick,2008;SchaickandSpek,2008); it is included insection5.2on indicatorsof

structuralaspectsoftheapplicabilitygapproblem.

With regard to the timesofthecity approach (Chapter 6) I amnot the first to

studyitspotential.Severalindepthstudiesfocusingonsituationsinparticularcoun

tries have been published (Bonfiglioli and Mareggi, 1997; Mareggi, 2002; Belloni,

1998;DATAR,2001;SZW,2002;Keuzenkamp,Cloin,PortegeijsandVeldheer,2003;

OCW,2007),aswellasseveralcomparativestudiesbasedonthestateoftheart in

the1990s(BoulinandMckenberger,1999;Mckenberger,2001).Thesamegoesfor

someexplorativestudiesinmorerecentyearsofbestpracticesandtheirtransferabil

ity(Horelli,2005;IERMB,2008;OCWandDehora,2009;Mairhuber,2001;MairhuberandAtzmller,2009)andofcasestudiesinwhichparticularplanninginstrumentsare

developed (SUREconsortium, 2006). This material has been used as secondary

sourcematerial.

Thebodyof literatureontimeorientedurbanplanninganddesignonwhichthis

chapter isbasedoriginates largelyfromtheperiodbetweenthemid1990sandmid

2000s.Sometheoreticalliteratureoriginatesfromthe1980s.Idistinguishtwotypes

ofsourcesonwhichmyanalysishasbeenbased:(1)documents(co)authoredbycore

membersoftheepistemiccommunityontimeorientedurbanplanninganddesign;

thesearepartiallyplanningdocumentsandpartiallyarticlesandcompiledvolumes

onplanning

practices;

(2)

documents

in

which

the

epistemic

community

isreferred

to

byauthorsfromoutsidethecorenetwork;mostoftheseareexplorativedocuments

tosee ifthereare lessonstobe learnedfrompastpractices.Thefactthatthereare

severaldifferent languagedomains involved inany case Italian,German,French,

Dutch,andEnglishtranslationoftermsmightinsomecasesleadtolossofhidden

andculturallydependentmeanings.Forthatreason,Iwilloftengivetheoriginalterm

togetherwithanEnglishtranslation.

1.8 PlanofthebookInthischapterIhaveintroducedthecentralproblemofthisthesis.Ihaveshownhowthatproblemrequiresacombinationofamethodologicalandasubstantiveapproach,

resultinginanexplorative,largelytheoreticalstudy.IhaveexplainedthatIhavecho

sen to use a research strategy that is akin to knowledge utility studies that are a

methodological type of studies. In addition I have explained the reasons for my

choice to study two different approaches to incorporating empirical knowledge of

temporospatialactivitypatternsofpeopleinurbanandregionaldesignandplanning.

The followingChapter2will focuson thedefinitionandconceptualisationof time

spaceontheborderbetweenthedomainsoftimegeography,ofsocialtheoryandof

urbanand regionaldesignandplanning.Thesubsequent twochapterswilldevelop

theconceptsof theapplicabilitygapandofknowledgeutility to serveasa furthertheoreticalandmethodological framework for the thesis.Those threechapterswill


31/32


31

provide thebasisonwhich todraw conclusions from theanalysisof the threeapproaches.

Figure1.6presentsanoverviewoftheoutlineofthethesis.Thecoreofthethesis

isformedbytheanalysisoftwoapproacheseachelaboratedon inadescriptiveac

countoftheapproachinasinglechapter.Eachofthetwochapterstreatingaparticu

larapproachisbuiltupalongthelinesofthethreemajoraspectsoftheapplicability

gapproblemplusmetalevelaspects.InthesechaptersfirstlyIaimtoidentifypossi

bleindicatorsoftheapplicabilitygapproblemsfortheapproaches,and,secondly,to

explorepossibleandplausiblyeffectivestrategiestoovercometheapplicabilitygap.

Thefirstofthetwocorechaptersrevolvesaroundthe introductionoftrackingtech

nologies suchasGPS (GlobalPositioningSystem)andmobilephone tracking in thedomainofurbanandregionaldesignandplanning.InthischapterIsearchforwaysin

which researchusing these technologiesmayhelp in literallyputting the time

spacecharacteristicsofpeoplesbehaviourinthepicturewithinthedomainofurban

and regional design and planning. The second of the two core chapters revolves

around the introductionof timeplanningpolicieswithaspatialcomponent, inpar

ticularsocalledterritorialtimeplans,inseveralEuropeancountrieswithanemphasis

onplanningpracticesinItaly,GermanyandFrance.Thesepracticeshavebeensaidto

provide interestingexemplars forembedding knowledgeof temporospatial activity

patternsofpeopleinpracticesofurbandesignandplanning(Drewe,2005b;Nioand

Reijndorp,1997;

Mey

and

Heide,

1997).

Isearch

in

this

chapter

for

the

degree

to

which this potential is realised. The conclusionson the findings regarding eachof

theseapproachesare forthemostpart included inthetwodescriptivechapters. In

Chapter7Iputthecompoundfindingsinthecontextofthetheoreticalframeworkas

setoutinChapters2,3and4.Iwillalsoreflectthereonthemainresearchquestions

andIwillidentifyavenuesoffutureresearch.


32/32

Timespacematters

Figure1.6Structureofargumentationandoutlineofthethesis

Documents

Timespace Matters - Chapter 1 Problem and research strategy