معماری و مشارکت: مرور مضامین و چشم‌اندازهای در حال ظهور

مرتضوی, احمد; انصاری, حمیدرضا; علی‌پور, لیلا

doi:10.22034/aaud.2024.442910.2866

معماری و مشارکت: مرور مضامین و چشم‌اندازهای در حال ظهور

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

احمد مرتضوی ¹

حمیدرضا انصاری ²

لیلا علی‌پور ³

¹ پژوهشگر دکتری معماری، دانشکده معماری، دانشکدگان هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران (نویسنده مسئول).

² دانشیار گروه معماری، دانشکده معماری، دانشکدگان هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران.

³ استادیار گروه معماری، دانشکده معماری، دانشکدگان هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران.

10.22034/aaud.2024.442910.2866

چکیده

رویکرد مشارکتی یکی از شیوه‌های طراحی معماری است که بر مشارکت کاربران در فرآیند شکل‌گیری بنا و محیط تاکید دارد. به دلیل گستردگی آثار پژوهشی این حوزه، پژوهشگران نیاز دارند تا درک جامعی از پژوهش‌های انجام‌شده داشته باشند. با هدف درک بهتر مفهوم معماری مشارکتی و ایجاد ساختاری بر اساس مفاهیم موجود در آن، این پژوهش مقالات حوزه معماری مشارکتی را از سال 2010 تاکنون مورد توجه قرار داده است. پژوهش سوالات خود را معطوف به یافتن حوزه‌های شکل‌گیری مقالات و اهداف آن‌ها، کشف متغیرها و مفاهیم موجود در مقالات و نحوه تکامل زمانیشان کرده است. در این پژوهش، مقالات مربوط در دو حوزه کلی مفاهیم انتقادی (شامل تعاریف و مولفه‌ها، ارزش‌های اجتماعی و زمینه‌های تاریخی) و پژوهش‌های تجربی- آموزشی (شامل ابزارهای مشارکت، آموزش، سلامت اجتماعی، نیازهای کاربران و حفظ میراث) دسته‌بندی شدند. بررسی محتوای مقالات نشان داد که بیان یک مشکل و ابزارهای غلبه بر آن، بررسی جمعیت‌های هدف، بررسی مقیاس‌های متنوع و کشف مفاهیم مرکزی مهم‌ترین موضوعات و متغیرهای مطرح شده بودند. پرتکرارترین مشکلاتی که منجر به شکل‌گیری مشارکت شدند، عدم وجود زیرساخت‌های مناسب شهری و روستایی و وجود مشکلات اجتماعی، سیاسی هستند. پژوهشگران از ترکیبی از ابزارهای انسان‌پژوهی (شناسایی و ارزیابی وضعیت موجود و نیازهای پیدا و پنهان گروه‌های مردم) و عملی (طراحی و ساخت مشارکتی نمونه‌های اولیه و نهایی) برای غلبه بر این مشکلات استفاده کرده‌اند. بیش‌ترین گروه مورد مطالعه افراد بحران‌زده (کم‌درامد، سیل و زلزله‌زده، مهاجران غیرقانونی و غیره) و جمعیت‌های حساس اجتماعی (سالمندان، کودکان، زنان باردار و غیره) بودند که بیش‌ترین تکرار را در مقیاس شهر، شهرک‌ها و زاغه‌ای شهری داشتند. همچنین بررسی شبکه کلیدواژه‌ها و مفاهیم به‌کار رفته در مطالعات نشان‌دهنده وجود سه مفهوم اساسی تمرکزدایی، جوامعِ به حاشیه رانده‌شده و پتانسیل‌های معنایی محیط است. این مفاهیم را می‌توان در زیرمجموعه‌ای از واژگان مرتبط، در شبکه‌ای از روابط قرار داد تا اصلی‌ترین سازه‌های مفهومی مشارکت را نمایش دهند. همچنین مفاهیم روی نمودار زمانی قرار گرفتند تا سهم هر کدام در شکل دادن به ادبیات موضوع در دوره‌های زمانی مشخص شود. در نتیجه مشخص شد زیرمفهوم‌های هویت‌یابی کاربران، زندگی روزمره و میراث فرهنگی بیش‌ترین رشد را در سال‌های گذشته داشته‌اند. با توجه به مطالعه انجام‌شده درباره متغیرها و مفاهیم، جهت‌گیری‌های آینده این حوزه در زمینه‌های مشکلات (مانند کاهش فاصله میان ایده‌آل‌های بین‌ نسلی و وجود فضاهای تبعیض‌آمیز)، گروه‌های هدف (مانند اقلیت‌های نژادی و فرهنگی و افراد آسیب‌دیده از جنگ‌ها)، مقیاس (مانند طراحی اشیای کوچک روزمره و فضاهای باز خارج شهر) و ابزار (مانند پرینترهای سه‌بعدی بزرگ و هوش مصنوعی) پیشنهاد شده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

معماری مشارکتی

مطالعه مروری

متغیرها

شبکه مفاهیم

جهت‌گیری‌های آینده

عنوان مقاله English

Architecture and Participation: Review of Emerging Themes and Outlooks

نویسندگان English

Ahmad Mortazavi ¹

Hamidreza Ansari ²

Leyla Alipoor ³

¹ Ph.D. Researcher in Architecture, Architecture Faculty, Fine Art Schools, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran (Corresponding Author).

² Associate Professor of Architecture Department, Architecture Faculty, Fine Art Schools, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran.

³ Assistant Professor of Architecture Department, Architecture Faculty, Fine Art Schools, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده English

A participatory approach is one of the architectural design techniques that emphasizes users' collaboration in the formation process of the building and environment. Since there are many main research works in this field, researchers need a holistic understanding of the studies to be conducted. This study has reviewed the papers on participatory architecture topics since 2010 to achieve a better perception of participatory architecture concepts and create a structure based on the concepts existing in it. This study asks questions to find scopes leading to papers and their objectives, discover variables and notions available in the articles, and their temporal evolution process. In this research, the relevant papers were classified into two general fields of critical concepts (including definitions and components, social values, and historical fields) and empirical-educational studies (comprising participation tools, training, social health, users’ needs, and heritage preservation). Content review of papers indicated the most important topics and variables investigated in them: expressing a problem and tools for overcoming it, examining target populations, assessing diverse scales, and discovering central concepts. The most frequent problems that led to participation included a lack of proper urban and rural infrastructures and the presence of social-political issues. Researchers have used a mixture of anthropological (identifying and evaluating existing status as well as overt and covert needs of people groups) and pragmatic (participatory design and construction of prototypes and final samples) tools to overcome the mentioned problems. The most studied groups included people in crisis (low-income, affected by flood and earthquake, illegal immigrants, etc.) and socially sensitive populations (elders, children, pregnant women, etc.) who were most frequent at the scale of cities, towns, and urban slums. Also, a review of the network of keywords and concepts used in the studies confirms the presence of three underlying concepts: decentralization, marginalized communities, and the semantic potentials of the environment. These concepts can be placed in a subset of relevant words and a network of relationships to demonstrate the main conceptual constructs of participation. Also, the concepts were placed on a time-based diagram to find the contribution of each concept in shaping topic literature within different periods. Therefore, results confirmed the highest growth of some sub-concepts in past years: users’ identity finding, daily life, and cultural heritage. According to the studies conducted about variables and concepts, it has been recommended for the future orientation of this scope towards problems (e.g., narrowing the gap between intergeneration ideals and the presence of discriminative spaces), target groups (like racial and cultural minorities and war victims), scale (such as the design of small daily objects and open spaces out of the city), and tools (e.g., large 3D printers and artificial intelligence (AI)).

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Participatory Architecture

Review Study

Variables

Network of Concepts

Future Orientations

Arboleda, Gabriel. 2020. “Beyond Participation: Rethinking Social Design.” Journal of Architectural Education 74 (1): 15-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.2020.1693817.
Asadpoor, Javad, Yong Wah Goh, and David Thorpe. 2021. “A human-centric participatory approach to energy-efficient housing based on occupants’ collaborative image.” Open House International 46(4): 615-635. https://doi.org/10.1108/ohi-11-2020-0163.
Bakr, Ali Fouad, Zayed Tarek El Sayad, and Sara Makram Shokrolla Thomas. 2018. “Virtual reality as a tool for children’s participation in kindergarten design process.” Alexandria Engineering Journal 57(4): 3851-3861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2018.10.003.
Baratta, Adolfo, Laura Calcagnini, Fabrizio Finucci, Antonio Magarò, and Hector Ramírez. 2022. “Technological design and participatory process for the retrofitting of informal settlements in Colombia.” Informes de la Construccion 74(568). https://doi.org/10.3989/ic.89662.
Beeksma, Anne, and Cessari De Cesari. 2019. “Participatory heritage in a gentrifying neighbourhood: Amsterdam’s Van Eesteren Museum as affective space of negotiations.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 25(9): 974-991. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1509230.
Behrens, Moritz. 2017. “Sentiment architectures as vehicles for participation.” Architectural Design 87(1): 98-103. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2138.
Belova, Daria, and John Schofield. 2022. “Collaborative experimentation in the urban process: activism and everyday heritage in Krasnoyarsk (Siberia, Russia).” International Journal of Heritage Studies 28(4): 538-558. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2021.2020878.
Bilge, Gulsah, Sigrid Hehl-Lange, and Eckart Lange. 2016. “The use of mobile devices in participatory decision-making.” Journal of Digital Landscape Architecture (1): 234-242. https://doi.org/10.14627/537612027.
Blundell, E. 2022. “A Place for Birth: Storytelling in Interdisciplinary Education.” Journal of Architectural Education 76(1): 113-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.2022.2017710.
Boano, Camillo, and Emily Kelling. 2013. “Towards an architecture of dissensus: Participatory urbanism in South-East Asia.” Footprint (13): 41-62. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84890465048&partnerID=40&md5=15eca606bcbe7b676c049c33c5e1befd.
Boys, Jos, and Zoe Partington. 2022. “Abandoned in the Archives? Collaborating with Disabled People Towards More Inclusive Spaces.” Journal of Museum Education 47(4): 442-458. https://doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2022.2147357.
Brown, Graham, and Robert Gifford. 2001. “ARCHITECTS PREDICT LAY EVALUATIONS OF LARGE CONTEMPORARY BUILDINGS: WHOSE CONCEPTUAL PROPERTIES?” Journal of Environmental Psychology 21(1): 93-99. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2000.0176.
Chavarría Arnau, A., F. Benetti, F. Giannetti, and V. Santacesaria. 2017. “Building participatory digital narratives about medieval Padua and its territory.” European Journal of Post-Classical Archaeologies 7: 265-291. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85031750402&partnerID=40&md5=f3abacffcd6c4efe49d4fc0a1deb8189.
De Jorge-Huertas, Virginia de. 2020. “Collaborative Designing of Communities. Helsinki and Zurich Pioneers.” Ace-Architecture City and Environment 15(43): 22. https://doi.org/10.5821/ace.15.43.9012.
De Vries, Jan. 1999. “Great Expectations: Early Modern History and the Social Sciences.” Review (Fernand Braudel Center) 22(2): 121-149. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40241453.
Denicke-Polcher, Sandra. 2022. “Reactivating underpopulated areas through participatory architecture in southern Italy by creating a home for newcomers.” Architecture_Mps 21(1): 13. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.amps.2022v21i1.003.
Dubbeling, Marielle, Laura Bracalenti, and Laura Lagorio. 2009. “Participatory Design of Public Spaces for Urban Agriculture, Rosario, Argentina.” Open House International 34(2): 36-49.
Edwards, Gareth, Haijiang Li, and Bin Wang. 2015. “BIM based collaborative and interactive design process using computer game engine for general end-users.” Visualization in Engineering 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40327-015-0018-2.
Ekici, Simay Cansu, Özgün Özçakır, and Ayşe Güliz Bilgin Altinöz. 2022. “Ability of historic rural settlements based on participatory conservation approach: Kemer Village in Turkey.” Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-05-2021-0087.
El-Kholei, Ahmad O. 2020. “Failed planning: lost opportunities and choices for the future.” Open House International 45(4): 387-406. https://doi.org/10.1108/ohi-07-2020-0075.
Freeman, Cristina Garduño. 2013. “Participatory culture as a site for the reception of architecture: Making a giant Sydney Opera House cake.” Architectural Theory Review 18(3): 325-339. https://doi.org/10.1080/13264826.2013.890008.
Ghaziani, Rokhshid. 2021. “Primary school design: co-creation with children.” Archnet-Ijar International Journal of Architectural Research 15(2): 285-299. https://doi.org/10.1108/arch-07-2020-0132.
Ghomeishi, Mohammad, and Mahmud Jusan. 2013. “Investigating Different Aesthetic Preferences Between Architects and Non-architects in Residential Facade Designs. Indoor and Built Environment.” Indoor and Built Environment 22: 925-964. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X12458513.
Hasanin, Abeer A. 2013. “Cultural diversity and reforming social behavior: A participatory design approach to design pedagogy.” Archnet-IJAR 7(2): 92-101. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84886783832&partnerID=40&md5=edab8a2458ef90f2b824290ba9967d56.
Heras, Veronica Cristina, Maria Soledad Moscoso Cordero, Anja Wijffels, Alicia Tenze, and Diego Esteban Jaramillo Paredes. 2019. “Heritage values: towards a holistic and participatory management approach.” Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 9(2): 199-211. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-10-2017-0070.
Hermansdorfer, Mariusz, Hans Skov-Petersen, Pia Fricker, Kane Borg, and Philip Belesky. 2020. “Bridging tangible and virtual realities: Computational procedures for data-informed participatory processes.” Journal of Digital Landscape Architecture (5): 354-365. https://doi.org/10.14627/537690036.
Hershberger, Robert. G. 1969. A Study of Meaning and Architecture. University of Pennsylvania.
Hoddinott, Wendy, Simon Swaffield, and Emma J. Stewart. 2019. “Participation by or for design? The case of Albion Square in post-earthquake Otautahi Christchurch.” Journal of Landscape Architecture 14(2): 54-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/18626033.2019.1673584.
Hofmann, Susanne. 2018. “Participative Architecture: The Way to More Environmental Justice.” Architectural Design 88(5): 116-121. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2352.
Hong, Seung Wan, Yongwook Jeong, yehuda Kalay, Sungwon Jung, and Jaewook Lee. 2016. “Enablers and barriers of the multi-user virtual environment for exploratory creativity in architectural design collaboration.” CoDesign 12(3): 151-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1081239.
Jørgensen, Nina Stener. 2022. “Form Follows People?–Copenhagen’s Ny Nørreport as a Post-Participatory Project.” Architecture and Culture 10(1): 21-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/20507828.2022.2027637.
Julier, Guy. 2006. “From Visual Culture to Design Culture.” Design (22): 64-76. https://doi.org/10.1162/074793606775247817.
Kaminer, Tahl. 2014. “The contradictions of participatory architecture and Empire.” Architectural Research Quarterly 18(1): 31-37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S135913551400027X.
Kee, Tris. 2014. “Cultivating a participatory design practice in architecture: A case study of Hong Kong housing authority.” International Journal of Architectonic, Spatial, and Environmental Design 8(3-4): 13-25. https://doi.org/10.18848/2325-1662/cgp/v08i3-4/38339.
Kreutz, Angela, Victoria Derr, and Louise Chawla. 2018. “Fluid or Fixed? Processes that Facilitate or Constrain a Sense of Inclusion in Participatory Schoolyard and Park Design.” Landscape Journal 37(1): 39-54. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.37.1.39.
Kutcher, Anna M., and Virginia T. LeBaron. 2022. “A simple guide for completing an integrative review using an example article.” Journal of Professional Nursing 40: 13-19. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2022.02.004.
Luck, Rachael. 2018. “Participatory design in architectural practice: Changing practices in future making in uncertain times.” Design Studies 59: 139-157. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.10.003.
Marques, Bruno, Greg Grabasch, and Jacqueline McIntosh. 2021. “Fostering Landscape Identity Through Participatory Design With Indigenous Cultures of Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand.” Space and Culture 24(1): 37-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331218783939.
McLaughlan, Rebecca, Michael Annear, and Alan Pert. 2018. “Dementia, ageing, and the city: learning from the streets of Melbourne.” Arq-Architectural Research Quarterly 22(2): 105-114. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1359135518000350.
Melcher, KKatherine. 2016. “Many voices, one project: Participation and aesthetics in community-built practices.” Plan Journal 1(2): 351-366. https://doi.org/10.15274/tpj.2016.01.02.12.
Murphy, Keith Michael. 2005. “Collaborative imagining: The interactive use of gestures, talk, and graphic representation in architectural practice.” Semiotica 156: 113-145. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.113.
Myjak-Pycia, Anna. 2021. “Forgoing the architect’s vision: American home economists as pioneers of participatory design, 1930-60.” Arq-Architectural Research Quarterly 25(1): 17-30. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1359135521000142.
Natakun, Boonanan. 2015. “Community-based development and participatory slum upgrading: Practices and challenges.” International Journal of Architectonic, Spatial, and Environmental Design 9(1): 15-27. https://doi.org/10.18848/2325-1662/CGP/v09i01/38385.
Nguyen, Nguyen Thi Hanh, and Hung Thanh Dang. 2020. “Adaptation of “participatory method” in design “for/with/by” the poor community in Tam Thanh, Quang Nam, Vietnam.” Smart and Sustainable Built Environment 9(3): 272-282. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-01-2019-0012.
Nuijsink, Cathelijne. 2021. “Multiple Authorship: The Collaborative Production of Knowledge in the Shinkenchiku Residential Design Competition.” Ra-Revista De Arquitectura (23): 174-189. https://doi.org/10.15581/o14.23.174-189.
Ortiz, Catalina, Alejandro Vallejo, Jorge Peña, Emily Morris, Joiselen Cazanave Macías, and Dayané Proenza González. 2021. “Mapping participatory planning in Havana: patchwork legacies for a strengthened local governance.” Environment and Urbanization 33(2): 330-355. https://doi.org/10.1177/09562478211032570.
Papa, Gerdi, and Emel Petërçi. 2021. “Recovered materials for participatory urban design processes: The case of Struga City.” ArchiDOCT 8(2): 70-85. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85100630906&partnerID=40&md5=1265eda31c95ef95c700a55eac0944f2.
Parker, Marie, Xiangming Fang, Shannon Self-Brown, and Ali Rahimi. 2021. “Establishing how social capital is studied in relation to cardiovascular disease and identifying gaps for future research—A scoping review protocol.” PLOS ONE 16: e0249751. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249751.
Pogačar, Kaja. 2014. “Urban activator’ - Participatory and bottom-up tool of urban change: Definition and selected examples.” Prostor 22(2): 188-199. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84920936819&partnerID=40&md5=d17038cb77180d18b0b609230dd04259.
Ravina, Danilo, Rowell Shih, and Gabriella Medvegy. 2018. “Community architecture: The use of participatory design in the development of a community housing project in the Philippines.” Pollack Periodica 13(2):207-218. https://doi.org/10.1556/606.2018.13.2.20.
Rodgers, Maria, Bruno Marques, and Jacqueline McIntosh. 2020. “Connecting Maori Youth and Landscape Architecture Students through Participatory Design.” Architecture and Culture 8(2): 309-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/20507828.2020.1768349.
Rodrigues, F. M., and L. Loures. 2017. “Public participation project-based learning in landscape architecture.” WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development 13: 441-451. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85039979494&partnerID=40&md5=8a28de31a165ee2c7c45f853c665b9af.
Salama, Ashraf. 1995. New Trends in Architectural Education: Designing the Design Studio.
Salazar Ferro, C., I. Artega Arredondo, C. M. Rodriguez, and D. H. Nadal. 2020. “Active Learning in Architectural Education: A Participatory Design Experience (PDE) in Colombia.” International Journal of Art and Design Education 39(2): 346-366. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12280.
Saleh, Ibrahim Samy Sayed, Mostafa Rafat Ahmad Ismail, and Ahmad Atef Eldesouky Faggal. 2020a. “User preference and input analysis in architectural design and construction using participatory frameworks with reference to a case study in Egyptian Primary School.” International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology 13(12): 4966-4975. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85099287821&partnerID=40&md5=19bc6641a1933e6e686b91a665223b8a.
Saleh, Ibrahim Samy Sayed, Mostafa Refat Ismail, and Ahmed Atef Eldesouky Faggal. 2020b. “Participatory architectural design and construction framework in primary schools with reference to a local case study in Egypt.” International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology 13(12): 4953-4965. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85099283951&partnerID=40&md5=aa2da0477eff3460c79583725d6eec99.
Sanchez, Jose. 2019. “Architecture for the commons: Participatory systems in the age of platforms.” Architectural Design 89(2): 22-29. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2408.
Sanders, Elizabeth B. N., and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2008. “Co-creation and the new landscapes of design.” CoDesign 4(1): 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068.
Sani, Rafooneh M., Bahar Ulucay, and Pinar Ulucay. 2011. “The significance of user participation in architectural design: The case of nicosia social housing complex.” Archnet-IJAR 5(3): 25-39. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84859914129&partnerID=40&md5=d5f6c56a8adccc7e965d4c1fe02e70ed.
Serginson, Michael, Vladimir Ladinski, Bob Giddings, and Messer Messer. 2013. “Assessing the effectiveness of architectural design communication through public participation methods.” International Journal of Design Management and Professional Practice 6(1): 61-83. https://doi.org/10.18848/2325-162x/cgp/v06i01/38630.
Seve, Bruno, Zaida Muxi Martinez, Roberto Sega, and Ernest Redondo Dominguez. 2021. “THE CITY, THAT COLLECTIVE WORK OF ART. Tools for graphic expression and participatory creation in urban spaces.” Ega-Revista De Expresion Grafica Arquitectonica 26(41): 230-241. https://doi.org/10.4995/ega.2021.13237.
Staniewska, Anna, and Jacek Konopacki. 2021. “Minecraft Games and Public Participation in Landscape Design - Current Teaching Experience.” World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education 19(2): 238-243. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85108535089&partnerID=40&md5=d08fb4385d2f297b579babae57f9e57f.
Stierli, Martino, and Mechtild Widrich. 2015. Participation in Art and Architecture: Spaces of Interaction and Occupation. Bloomsbury Academic.
Swift, Elizabeth. 2010. “Losing the plot – an exploration of narrative collaboration and control in second life.” International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media 6(2): 171-192. https://doi.org/10.1386/padm.6.2.171_1.
Tavy, Zsuzsu, Marianne Van Bochove, Jeroen Dikken, Margaret Von Faber, Katja M. Rusinovic, Suzan Van Der Pas, and Joost Van Hoof. 2022. “The Participation of Older People in the Development of Group Housing in The Netherlands: A Study on the Involvement of Residents from Organisational and End-User Perspectives.” Buildings 12(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12030367.
Udall, Julia, and Anna Holder. 2013. “The ‘diverse economies’ of participation.” Footprint (13): 63-80. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84890477556&partnerID=40&md5=4e08e26a5b1c27d22be2b131e3d801d3.
Van Zyl, Izak, and Amalia Sabiescu. 2020. “Toward intersubjective ethics in community-based research.” Community Development 51(4): 303-322. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2020.1777178.
Woolner, Pamela, and Paula Cardellino. 2021. “Crossing contexts: Applying a system for collaborative investigation of school space to inform design decisions in contrasting settings.” Buildings 11(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11110496.
Zvoncakova, Katarina, Martin Pírko, Vojtěch Juřík, Tomáš Pavlica, and Ondřej Németh. 2019. “Differences between young architects’ and non-architects’ aesthetic evaluation of buildings.” Frontiers of Architectural Research 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2019.04.001.