Time, Temporality, and Planning – Comments on the State of Art in Strategic Spatial Planning Research

1. Introduction

Since past and present inevitably form the basis for the future distribution of activities in space, the time dimension is as essential for spatial planning as it is for any other type of planning. This also applies to strategic spatial planning, which is commonly understood as “transformative governance work” (Healey, 2009, p. 440, with reference to Albrechts 2004).

Both time and temporality are important to understand and theorize with regards to the practice of strategic spatial planning (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2011, p. 341). The former may be obvious; just think of time as a dimension to schedule a planning meeting. The latter is less obvious, because temporality concerns deliberation about issues of sequencing, tempo, and timing of planning activities (to name only a few). For instance, sequencing of informal planning communication and formal (statutory) planning procedures matters. Before formal procedures, practitioners may search for creative solutions to the pressing problems of strategic planning in cities and regions. After formal plans have been approved, they may be more concerned in ensuring the diffusion of and compliance with planning statements amongst target audiences (Mastop & Faludi, 1997).

It would seem self-evident that planning theorists would devote as much attention to time and temporality as to the spatial dimensions of planning. However, this is not the case (Das, 1991). So far, there are only a few contributions to planning theory that take up ongoing debates in other scientific disciplines and that make suggestions about how to rethink planning’s relationship to time and temporality (Hutter et al., 2014; Laurian & Inch, 2019). Surprisingly little has changed since Ewing declared nearly half a century ago: “The utterly essential dimension of planning is time. … Yet time is the one dimension of planning that never gets discussed. It is treated as if it were a constant that everyone understands” (Ewing, 1972, p. 439). Fine-grained process analyses with complex descriptions of temporality using categories such as duration, tempo, sequence, and timing, as well as in-depth analyses of change processes based on these categories, are not common in planning research.

This is to some extent understandable for, at least, two reasons. On the one hand, researchers and practitioners alike framed planning for a long time as an engineering task‚ ‘trapped’ into a modernist instrumental rationalism (Wiechmann, 2008, p. 10), which left little room for complex time considerations beyond the straightforward clock-time view of temporal variation (linear time, objective time). On the other hand, highlighting time and temporality systematically in research and practice is not without risk. One can get lost in the complexity of temporal features of social action (see Bartolini, 1993; Adam, 2004 for an overview). Is there the need and the opportunity then to highlight time and temporality in planning?

We answer both questions with ‘yes’ and the following seeks to justify the answer with regard to strategic spatial planning research. Our comments are methodological in ‘nature’. Section 2 briefly states that strategic spatial planning research has high potential to consider time and temporality, but could do better. Section 3 provides a short characterization of existing case study work on strategic planning and puts forward arguments on how to enhance time and temporality in a single case analysis and in multiple case studies. Section 4 concludes our comments on strategic spatial planning.

2. The Underused Potential to Consider Time and Temporality in Case Studies on Strategic Spatial Planning

Patsy Healey (1997, p. 5) defined strategic spatial planning “as a social process through which a range of people in diverse institutional relations and positions come together to design plan-making processes and develop contents and strategies for the management of spatial change”. Strategic spatial planning scholars often refer to this process-oriented definition (see the contributions in Albrechts et al., 2017; Hutter et al., 2019).

Following Van de Ven and Sminia (2012, p. 315, see also Howlett & Goetz 2014), we see process research as a “big tent” that covers efforts at historical reconstruction and ‘grasping reality in flight’ (becoming, emerging) as well as collective efforts to understand and shape possible futures (e.g. scenario-based planning). In process studies, temporal “ordering is critical to outcome”. (Poole, 2004, p. 12). Temporal ordering (“temporality”) refers to, among others, the duration, tempo (and the change of tempo), sequence, and timing of events and activities (Adam, 2004). Gryzmala-Busse (2011) shows that due attention to temporality is crucial to analyze causality in complex individual cases (“small-N research”, Goertz & Mahoney, 2012, p. 10), especially through process studies of social change (e.g. political regime change).

Strategic planning researchers often do small-N research as case study work (e.g. Albrechts et al., 2017). This is fortunate, because case study research has high potential to intensively consider the temporality of social action (Gerring, 2012). However, up to now, strategic planning researchers only partially use this potential. They mainly consider linear time to present empirical findings on strategy-making in cities and regions, for instance, as rather simple chronologies of planning activities and outputs (see below). Issues of temporality are mentioned only occasionally (see Healey, 2009 for an example). The time is ripe to advance a more systematic consideration of time and temporality in process-oriented case studies on strategic spatial planning (Davoudi, 2012).

3. Towards a Systematic Treatment of Time and Temporality in Strategic Planning Research

A systematic review of research specifically with regard to time and temporality in strategic spatial planning still has to be done. Therefore, in what follows, we only claim to undertake tentative steps in the direction of a more systematic treatment of time and temporality in process-oriented research on strategic planning. The following, firstly, comments on the state of the art of case study work on strategic spatial planning. Secondly, we argue that planning scholars can enhance time and temporality in case study work, if they distinguish more systematically between single and multiple case studies, as different types of time-oriented planning research.

3.1. A Short Characterization of the State of the Art of Case Study Work on Strategic Spatial Planning

Any empirical endeavour has to designate three crucial dimensions of the specific object of investigation: the units of analysis (properties), space, and time (Morlino, 2018, p. 46). In strategic spatial planning, the realities we want to investigate require us to deal with methodological issues such as the qualitative nature of the vast majority of the phenomena under examination, and the fact that the number of cases that can be studied is often limited. This sets limits to standardized procedures. Hence, it is understandable that strategic spatial planning researchers often do – more or less comparative – case study work (e.g. Albrechts et al., 2017; Davoudi & Strange, 2009; Granqvist & Mäntysalo, 2020; Healey, 2007; Healey et al., 1997; Wiechmann, 2008). What is striking is that the intensity of considering time and temporality significantly differs between the analytical framing and design of case studies on the one hand, and the presentation of empirical findings on the other:

• Temporal categories only play a minor role in analytical frameworks for case analysis (e.g. Albrechts et al., 2017, p. 18). Frameworks refer to the processes, contents, and contexts of planning (e.g. gradual institutional change, agendas and methods, actor constellations, multi-level governance, driving economic forces) without highlighting systematically how these issues (or properties) are characterized by temporal categories. In addition, most research strategies are either intensive (or case-oriented), with only a few cases, in which diverse properties are examined, or extensive (or variable-specific), where a very large number of cases with only a few properties are considered. What is largely missing in case study design considerations is more systematic attention on diachronic research strategies that cover a broader period. Instead, case studies often seem to follow rather synchronic strategies where the analysis of cases and their properties are limited to a relatively reduced time span (cf. Morlino, 2018, p. 46). Studies by Healey et al. (1997) and Albrechts et al. (2003) illustrate this. The first study compared strategic planning in ten European regions. The respective observation period was limited to only two to six years (Healey, 1997, p. 17), which considerably limits the possibilities of process considerations. In the second study, three cases were described as snapshots and compared without explicitly defining the time dimension of the investigation. As is characteristic of synchronous research, the time dimension is reduced to a simple account of events and largely kept out of the analysis. Diachronic research strategies would require identifying relevant temporal units (e.g. periodization in phases or sequences) and highlighting analytical moments of transition, i.e. moments in which an accumulation of incidents is transformed into a qualitative change. Only this enables in-depth analyses of change processes.

• In presenting empirical findings on strategic spatial planning, references to linear time, chronologies, time frames and horizons, are pervasive. For instance, Healey (2007, p. 45) structures her empirical account of urban complexity and strategic planning in Amsterdam with regard to the chronology of major plans and policies (the chronology primarily refers to decades and selected years). Davoudi and Strange (2009) highlight time horizons in the contents of strategic spatial planning in the UK and Ireland (e.g. p. 223 on “ordering time and manipulating change” in correspondence with the “taming of space”). Linear time, chronologies, time frames and horizons are also pervasive in the case studies around the globe that are compiled in the volume edited by Albrechts et al. (2017). Methods that go beyond a simple account of events with temporal succession by a periodization of various sequences with causal relations or defining moments of transition, are by no means standard.

This short characterization of strategic spatial planning research leads us to three suggestions: Firstly, and not surprisingly, strategic planning researchers do not ignore time and temporality. However, secondly, up to now, case study work shows a selective treatment of time and temporality. Linear time, coarse-grained chronologies, time frames and horizons stand in the foreground, whereas diachronic research strategies, fine-grained process descriptions and explanations as well as the complex issues of temporality (duration, tempo, sequence, timing, and so forth) in strategy-making do not reach center stage. Thirdly, we interpret this selective treatment as a kind of gap between (1) the process-oriented understanding of strategic planning and (2) the actual empirical accounts of such strategy work in cities and regions. We argue that a process-oriented definition of strategic spatial planning (Healey, 1997) requires due attention to not only linear time and chronologies, but also especially issues of temporality like the sequencing and timing of planning efforts as manifestation of human agency (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998).

3.2. Advancing Time and Temporality in Case Studies on Strategic Spatial Planning

Let us assume that we are interested in analysing the effects of strategic planning processes on the development of the quality of life in urban regions, and in observing them in a number of European countries. In a conventional intensive study of multiple cases, the time dimension could be reduced to a point in time after the ‘completion’ of the planning processes, and we would get a comparative overall view of the observable effects. In an extensive (or variable-specific) analysis of many cases, the large number of cases would allow a few properties to be taken into account, making the above discussed dimensions of time and temporality in planning (like duration, tempo, sequence, timing) too inadequate to grasp. Both options would exclude the possibility of determining whether and to what extent the duration and sequence of individual events in the planning process had an impact on the results, which probably also changed over time. Only diachronic comparisons allow any systematic process-oriented investigation of change (Morlino, 2018; Van de Ven, 2007).

Inspired by the work of political scientist Stefano Bartolini (1993) on “Types of Research and Time”, we suggest that strategic planning researchers (and potentially also practitioners) would benefit from clarifying the thrust of analyzing time and temporality in their diachronic case study work. Among the many possible options, we consider two types of time-based research in particular, which help to close the identified research gap and ultimately contribute to a better understanding of time and temporality in strategic spatial planning:

• A single case study is ‘strong’ in exploring the complexity of time and temporality (using the concept of a “timescape” of Adam, 2004).

• Multiple case studies are ‘strong’ in addressing causality (in line with “Historical Institutionalism”, Sorensen, 2018).

Below we elaborate on these two statements in turn.

3.2.1. Time and Temporality in a Single-Case Study

We suggest that time-sensitive planning scholars use the selection of ‘only’ one case (e.g. an episode of strategic planning in a city) to explore a broad range of temporal categories in social action over linear time and a broader period (corresponding to diachronic variance in the sense of Bartolini, 1993; cf. Morlino, 2018). Thereby, it is important to systematically distinguish between linear (objective) time on the one hand and the experience of temporal categories by actors involved in strategic planning on the other (experienced time, subjective time, Elias, 1988; Snyder, 2019, p. 656, speaks of the distinction between time as “subjective flow” and “objective line” or A-series and B-series of time, 2019, p. 646).

Different theories of social action may lead to different conceptualizations of linear and experienced time (Adam, 2004; Hutter et al., 2014; Laurian & Inch, 2019; Snyder, 2019). However, we perceive a growing understanding in planning research that social action, in principle, involves high complexity of temporal categories. The concept of a “timescape”, developed by Barbara Adam (2004), is one option in considering this temporal complexity. “The notion of ‘scape’ is important here as it indicates, first, that time is inseparable from space and matter, and second, that context matters” (Adam, 2004, p. 144). Context conditions will be very different, dependent on the case chosen. We contend that cases in strategic planning research will often refer to a specific episode of planning in cities and regions (e.g. Healey, 2007, 2009). This is then the starting point for conceptualizing the case-relevant temporal complexity.

Adam (2004, p. 144) mentions time frames (seconds, days, years …), irreversibility, tempo, timing, time point, time patterns, time sequence and extension (duration) as well as time past, future, and present. Laurian and Inch (2019) argue that especially the latter is important for advancing time-sensitivity in planning research and practice (through addressing “now-making strategies” in relation to efforts of place-making (pp. 276–278)). However, they also explore issues of tempo and duration in planning (among others).

3.2.2. Time and Temporality in Multiple-Case Studies

Right from the ‘beginning’ in the 1990s, planning researchers framed strategic spatial planning from an institutional perspective (Healey, 1997; Salet & Faludi, 2000). Thereby, researchers often used the ‘Sociological Institutionalism’, but there has been less focus on the more time-sensitive ‘Historical Institutionalism’ (Sorensen, 2018). Historical institutionalists are especially interested in advancing a more time-sensitive explanation of complex individual cases. They argue that explaining the phenomenon of interest (e.g. radical changes of national political regimes) requires due attention to the duration and sequences of activities as well as timing with regard to dynamic context conditions (Gryzmala-Busse, 2011). They provide tools to visualize the connections between time and causality (e.g. with regard to gradual change and “critical junctures”, Mahoney et al., 2016, p. 78).

Planning scholars also address issues of gradual change, junctures, and path dependencies (Sorensen, 2018). Thereby, it is useful to distinguish between episodes, ongoing processes, and deep cultural conditions of strategic spatial planning (Healey, 2007, p. 21). Identifying the beginning and the end of episodes is often not trivial, given the complexities and uncertainties of planning processes. This temporal identification is crucial for understanding the duration of episodes and for analyzing the causality of planning with regard to processes of institutional change (Gryzmala-Busse, 2011). For instance, a single short planning episode may only have transformative institutional effects if change unfolds as a process of ‘punctuated equilibrium’ and not as gradual institutional change, which requires a series of episodes (Mahoney et al., 2016, see Servillo, 2017 in strategic planning research).

To keep the methodological issues, that go hand in hand with the combination of cross-temporal and cross-spatial variance in time-sensitive multiple-case studies, manageable, Bartolini (1993) advocates the research strategy of “developmental comparison” that is characterized by a temporally and spatially restricted set of units. The qualitative character of the phenomena examined in strategic spatial planning research also favors a small number of five to seven cases, because increasing the number of cases usually also transforms the type of comparison from a prevalently qualitative comparison to a prevalently quantitative one supported by statistical analysis (Morlino, 2018, p. 55).

In multiple-case studies on strategic spatial planning, it is necessary, but not sufficient to describe the chronology of planning practices with regard to linear time. Historical institutionalists (Mahoney et al., 2016) demonstrate empirically that sequences and the timing of specific activities make a difference with regard to the questions planning researchers want to answer (Sorensen, 2018). Planning researchers should seek to show through multiple-case studies how the complex normative commitments of strategic spatial planning can actually be accomplished (or not) over time and through case-specific sequences and timing decisions under highly institutionalized context conditions (Granqvist & Mäntysalo, 2020). For instance, is it possible to identify sequences and timing decisions of planning practitioners involved in informal and formal (statutory) planning practices that make a difference with regard to both legitimacy and effectiveness of strategic planning?

By concentrating on observable implications of theoretical assumptions, the method of process tracing (Beach & Brun Pedersen, 2019; Bennett & Checkel, 2015; Joachim & Markus, 2014), in particular, enables regularities in complex phenomena to be discovered. The aim is to identify causal mechanisms that are not directly observable themselves, by tracing causal processes from independent variables of interest to intervening and dependent variables.

4. Concluding Comment

In this paper, we argued that it is necessary to emphasize time and temporality in research on strategic spatial planning, and to do so through fine-grained process analyses using categories such as duration, tempo, sequence, and timing. If time and temporality are not sufficiently considered in research, process studies and impact analyses are of little significance. Other disciplines (such as political science, sociology, history, and management studies) have dealt more intensively with time and temporality, and may offer planning research important lessons. Strategic planning researchers need to explore the complexity of time and temporality beyond the straightforward clock-time view of temporal variation (linear, objective time). Too often, time is treated like a ‘container’ to only present empirical findings on planning processes and contents. This stands in contrast to the process-oriented definition of strategic spatial planning and does not exploit the potential of case studies on strategy work in cities and regions. The time is ripe to consider time as both subjective flow and objective line in strategic spatial planning (without falling into the trap of simplistic dualistic thinking). Case studies especially designed for this purpose could enable a systematic investigation of change and thus a deeper understanding of planning itself.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Gérard Hutter

Gérard Hutter is senior researcher at the Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development (IOER). His research is focused on strategic spatial planning, social resilience, and network governance in cities and regions.

Thorsten Wiechmann

Thorsten Wiechmann is professor of spatial planning and planning theory at TU Dortmund. His research is focused on urban and regional development, strategic planning, demographic change, and metropolitan governance.