AccScience Publishing / DP / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/DP026270030
Cite this article
1
Download
96
Views
Related Info Links
More by Authors Links
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
News and Announcements
View All
ARTICLE

Participatory temporal urbanism: Reimagining participatory design, place evolution, and sustainable cities

Tigran Haas1*
Show Less
1 Division of Urban and Regional Studies, Department of Urban Planning & Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Received: 29 June 2026 | Revised: 11 July 2026 | Accepted: 22 July 2026 | Published online: 31 July 2026
© 2026 by the Author(S). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Abstract

Public participation has long occupied a central position within planning and design theory. From Arnstein’s seminal work on citizen participation to collaborative planning, co-production, and contemporary participatory design approaches, scholars and practitioners have increasingly recognized the importance of involving citizens and users in shaping urban environments. Despite these advances, participation continues to be understood predominantly as an episodic and project-based activity associated with specific interventions, workshops, or consultation processes. Relatively limited attention has been devoted to the temporal dimensions of participation and to how users, places, meanings, and needs evolve over time. This study argues that time remains one of the least-explored dimensions of participatory planning and design. Building on literature from planning theory, participatory design, commons scholarship, care studies, and emerging work on temporality, the study proposes participatory temporal urbanism as a conceptual framework for understanding participation as an ongoing and evolving relationship rather than as a discrete event. The framework introduces five interrelated dimensions: co-creation, deliberation, co-management, co-adaptation, and co-memory. Drawing on concepts such as stewardship, commoning, maintenance, and care, the study further argues that sustainable urban development requires forms of participation that extend beyond implementation and continue throughout the life cycle of places. Particular attention is given to deliberative approaches, including the jury principle associated with New Urbanism, and to the role of participatory design in accommodating changing social, cultural, and intergenerational needs. By introducing time as a central analytical category, the study contributes to ongoing debates on participatory planning and participatory design and offers a new framework for understanding the collective processes through which sustainable cities can be collectively shaped, maintained, and continuously reinterpreted over time.

Graphical abstract
Keywords
Participatory planning
Participatory design
Temporal urbanism
Place evolution
Sustainable cities
Stewardship
Commons; Urban design
Funding
The author received no specific funding for this research.
Conflict of interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
  1. Arnstein SR. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plan. 1969;35(4):216-224. doi: 10.1080/01944366908977225
  2. Healey P. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London, UK: Macmillan Education; 1997. doi: 10.1007/978-1-349-25538-2
  3. Innes JE, Booher DE. Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Plan Theory Pract. 2004;5(4):419-436. doi: 10.1080/1464935042000293170
  4. Sanoff H. Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning. Hoboken, New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons; 2000.
  5. Jacobs J. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York, NY, USA: Random House; 1961.
  6. Sennett R. Building and Dwelling: Ethics for the City. New York, NY, USA: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2018.
  7. Mattern S. A City Is Not a Computer: Other Urban Intelligences. Princeton, New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press; 2021. doi: 10.2307/j.ctv1h9dgtj.6
  8. de la Bellacasa MP. Matters of Care: Speculative Ethics in More Than Human Worlds. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA: University of Minnesota Press; 2017.
  9. Rosa H. Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity. New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press; 2013.
  10. Sharma S. In the Meantime: Temporality and Cultural Politics. Durham, North Carolina, USA: Duke University Press; 2014.
  11. Lindblom CE. The science of “muddling through.” Public Adm Rev. 1959;19(2):79-88. doi: 10.2307/973677
  12. Davidoff P. Advocacy and pluralism in planning. J Am Inst Plan. 1965;31(4):331-338. doi: 10.1080/01944366508978187
  13. Friedmann J. Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton, New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press; 1987. doi: 10.2307/j.ctv10crf8d
  14. Lukes S. Power: A Radical View. In: Power. London, UK: Macmillan Education; 2005:14-59. doi: 10.1007/978-0-230-80257-5_2
  15. Flyvbjerg B. Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago, Illinois, USA: University of Chicago Press; 1998.
  16. Tritter JQ, McCallum A. The snakes and ladders of user involvement: Moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy. 2006;76(2):156-168. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.05.008
  17. Yiftachel O. Planning and social control: Exploring the dark side. J Plan Lit. 1998;12(4):395-406. doi: 10.1177/088541229801200401
  18. Forester J. Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley, California, USA: University of California Press; 1988.
  19. Cars G. Förhandlingar mellan privata och offentliga aktörer i samhällsbyggandet [Negotiations Between Private and Public Actors in Urban Development]. Doctoral dissertation. KTH Royal Institute of Technology; 1992.
  20. Hillier J. ‘Agon’izing over consensus: Why Habermasian ideals cannot be ‘real’. Plan Theory. 2003;2(1):37-59. doi: 10.1177/1473095203002001005
  21. Ehn P. Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts. Stockholm, Sweden: Arbetslivscentrum; 1988.
  22. Sanders EBN, Stappers PJ. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign. 2008;4(1):5-18. doi: 10.1080/15710880701875068
  23. Manzini E. Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: MIT Press; 2015.
  24. Björgvinsson E, Ehn P, Hillgren PA. Design things and design thinking: Contemporary participatory design challenges. Des Issues. 2012;28(3):101-116. doi: 10.1162/desi_a_00165
  25. Lennertz B, Lutzenhiser A. The Charrette Handbook: The Essential Guide for Accelerated, Collaborative Community Planning. Chicago, Illinois, USA: American Planning Association; 2006.
  26. Lennertz B, Lutzenhiser A. The Charrette Handbook. 2nd ed. Routledge; 2014.
  27. Duany A, Plater-Zyberk E, Speck J. Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. New York, NY, USA: North Point Press; 2000.
  28. Ostrom E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1990.
  29. Bollier D. Think Like a Commoner: A Short Introduction to the Life of the Commons. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers; 2014.
  30. Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2005;30(1):441-473. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511
  31. Armitage DR, Plummer R, Berkes F, et al. Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Front Ecol Environ. 2008;7(2):95-102. doi: 10.1890/070089
  32. Dempsey N, Burton M. Defining place-keeping: The long-term management of public spaces. Urban For Urban Green. 2012;11(1):11-20. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2011.09.005
  33. Gabauer A, Knierbein S, Cohen N, et al. Care and the City. New York, USA: Routledge; 2021. doi: 10.4324/9781003031536
  34. Davis J. The Caring City: Ethics of Urban Design. Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press; 2022. doi: 10.2307/j.ctv2jtxrfc
  35. Lefebvre H. Rhythmanalysis: Space, Time and Everyday Life. London, UK: Continuum; 2004.
  36. Adam B. Timescapes of Modernity: The Environment and Invisible Hazards. New York, USA: Routledge; 1998.
  37. Sheller M. Mobility Justice: The Politics of Movement in an Age of Extremes. Verso; 2018.
  38. Amin A. Land of Strangers. Identities. 2013;20(1):1-8. doi: 10.1080/1070289x.2012.732544
  39. Lydon M, Garcia A. Tactical Urbanism: Short-Term Action for Long-Term Change. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press/Center for Resource Economics; 2015. doi: 10.5822/978-1-61091-567-0
  40. Bishop P, Williams L. The Temporary City. New York, USA: Routledge; 2012.
  41. Preiser WFE, Rabinowitz HZ, White ET. Post-Occupancy Evaluation. New York, USA: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1988.
  42. Haas T. Designing the dialectic: A rejoinder to “Ideology, science and the New Urban Design—Critique and evolution.” J Urban Des. 2025;30(6):715-723. doi: 10.1080/13574809.2025.2593165
  43. Halbur T. Andrés Duany wants to reform the public process. Planetizen. 2010. Accessed July 9, 2026. https://www.planetizen.com/node/43935
  44. Lind D. Control the masses: Andrés Duany. Architect Magazine. 2011. Accessed July 9, 2026. https://www.architectmagazine.com/design/urbanism-planning/control-the-masses-andres-duany_o
  45. Foster SR, Iaione C. The city as a commons. Yale Law Policy Rev. 2016;34(2):281-349.
  46. Watson V. Seeing from the South: Refocusing urban planning on the globe’s central urban issues. Urban Studies. 2009;46(11):2259-2275. doi: 10.1177/0042098009342598
  47. Miraftab F. Insurgent planning: Situating radical planning in the Global South. Plan Theory 2009;8(1):32-50. doi: 10.1177/1473095208099297
Share
Back to top
Design+, Electronic ISSN: 3060-8953 Published by AccScience Publishing