Participation-based Parametric Design in Early Stages

A participative design process for spatial planning in office building

Elie Daher1, Sylvain Kubicki2, Burak Pak31,2Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology 3KU Leuven Department ofArchitecture Campus Sint-Lucas Brussels1,2{elie.daher|Sylvain.kubicki}@list.lu 3burak.pak@kuleuven.be

The term participation has been used to define different activities, such as civildebate, communication, consultation, delegation, self-help construction, politicaldecisions. However, participation in design started from the idea that individualswhom being affected by a design project must contribute to the design process.Recently, designers have been moving closer to the future users and developingnew ways to empower them to get involved in the design process. In this paper werethink the way the early design process is developed in a participatory approachthanks to parametric methods. A use case is proposed showing the potential ofparametric design methods to empower the participation of users in the design oftheir facilities. The use case is dealing in particular with the spatial planning ofan office building where the users together with the spatial planning team areable to design the layout spatial configuration by 1) fixing the objectives, 2)manipulating the model, 3)modifying some parameters, 4) visualizing theiterations and evaluating in a real-time each solution in an interactive 3Denvironment and together with facility managers 5) choosing the configuration ofthe spatial layout.

Keywords: Computational design, Participatory design, Optimization ,Parametric design

PARTICIPATORY DESIGNThe term participation has been used to define dif-ferent activities, such as civil debate, communication,consultation, delegation, self-help construction, po-litical decisions (Davidson et al., 2006). However, par-ticipation indesign started from the idea that individ-uals whom being affected by a design project musthave a position in the design process. Recently, de-signers have been moving closer to the future users

of what they design and developing new ways toempower them to get involved in the design pro-cess (Sanders and P.J. Stappers 2008). The partici-patory approach (i.e. ‘user as partner’) has been ledby Northern Europeans in the early 1970s. Severalprojects in Scandinavia set out to find themost effec-tive ways for computer-system designers to collab-orate with worker organizations to develop systemsthat most effectively promoted the quality of work

COLLABORATIVE & PARTICIPATIVE DESIGN - Volume 1 - eCAADe 36 | 429

life (Sanoff, 2000). The participation is not a matterof fact, but a distributed, heterogeneous and rela-tional process (Andersen et al., 2015). This consistsinto making a move from user-centered design to aparticipatory design with important impacts on thetraditional rolesof players and stakeholders in thede-sign process (Sanders and P.J. Stappers 2008). In theclassical way of the design process, the user is pas-sive, the designer brings the knowledge from theo-ries, observation and interviews. Different levels ofparticipation have been identified in the past, rang-ing from manipulation to citizen control (Arnstein,1969).

In the participatory design, the roles and taskswill be different since the user (eventually with a pas-sive role in the traditional way of design process)is given the position to express his experience andplays an important role in transmitting the knowl-edge into ideas and concept development (Sandersand P.J. Stappers, 2008). Even with this capabilityadded in the participative design, this remains a re-sponsive system, where the designers are looking forcomments about their design and the public is nottruly empowered to design (Cimerman, 2000). Theconcepts around the participatory design and in par-ticular about who should be involved in the collec-tive acts of creativity, design or creation, when, andin which role vary between different studies in so-cial science. In order to support participatory de-sign, a wide variety of methods and techniques havebeen developed to enhance the involvement of bothusers and stakeholders in the same design processes(Abras, et al., 2004). More cost-efficient and effec-tive practices are needed for gathering users‘ needsand requirements in real contexts in order to reflectthese needs into the final design. The highest levelof empowerment of the users through direct partici-pation is characterized by the direct engagement ofthe user in the design process. In this case, the user isconsidered as the decision-maker. This type of par-ticipation gets more complex when it is concernedwith the community participation. In a variety de-sign instances, the community or individuals’ partic-

ipation is needed in different situation (building par-ticipatory residential...).

User participation in architectural and ur-ban designCommunity design is an umbrella term that em-braces community planning, community architec-ture, social architecture, community developmentand community participation, this approach hasemerged from the fact that the mismanagement ofthe physical environment is a major factor contribut-ing to the social ills (Sanoff, 2000). On the otherhand, computer application experiences and the de-velopment of the technologies, demonstrate that theuse of computers with specific methodologies canhelp the participation and facilitate the integrationof the user into the decision-making process. BIMcan be perceived as a process that facilitates the par-ticipation of users in the design process. Today, thecomplexity of designing and constructing buildingsis more and more increasing. Engaging the userin the design-related process issues will ensure therealisation of the users’ requirements in the designsincehousing andbuildingdesign emerges as a closecooperation between architect (designer) and theclient (user) (Kwieciński and Słyk, 2014). Various re-searches and practices explored the methods andtechniques in order to engage the participation ofthe users in the design of their living environments.The user participation in the design has emerged asa key to a gap between the requirements and thesolutions proposed by the designers (Sanoff, 2000).The traditional participatorymodels have been heav-ily criticized because they require meetings that areoften ineffective and inefficient, held at a fixed timeand place; severely limiting the number of actors tak-ing part (Healey, 1998; Kingston, 2007). In suchmeet-ings, it is almost impossible to establish communica-tion that is equal. It is also hard to engage a highnumber of citizens and to take their experiences intoaccount in early stages of the planning process (Nuo-jua and Kutti, 2008). Too often the involvement ofusers is superficial and simply used to bring credi-

430 | eCAADe 36 - COLLABORATIVE & PARTICIPATIVE DESIGN - Volume 1

bility to the planning and decision-making processwithout really transforming it (Sennett, 2012). Conse-quently, the removal of the public from the decisionmaking process leads to a sense of alienation of theusers from their environment (Jones et al., 2009). Thebenefits of community participation in urban plan-ning are: enhancing the capacity of thepopulation tocultivate a ”stronger sense of commitment”, increas-ing user satisfaction and creating realistic expecta-tions of outcomes (Al-kodmany, 1999).

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR THEBENEFITOFTHEPARTICIPATION INARCHI-TECTURAL ANDURBANDESIGNRecent developments in ICTs, such as 3D modellingsoftware, communication platforms and computerserious games as tools for urban planning, are offer-ing new potentials of citizen participation in urbanplanning design (Hanzl, 2007). In general, these soft-ware systems enable displaying data in forms thatcan be easily understood by the participants. Theinformatics applications allow the simulation of fu-ture urban plans by implementing the parametersessential to the planning development. A key fea-ture of most participative design activities is the useof physical artefacts such as sketches, games, or lay-outsonwhichparticipants canplaceobjects to repre-sent houses, gardens, roads... Researchers developedvarious technological tools to enable participation.Among those, the tangible table can be foreseen asa participatory technology that helps to increase theengagement of users and community in urban de-sign by manipulating physical objects (Maquil et al.,2007). In a later research, Wagner showed how touse a set of participatory technologies in combina-tion with methods to enable a participation to cre-ate a vision of an urban project (Wagner et al., 2009).Digital seriousgamesare another approach toenableparticipatory urban planning design. These aim tosupport learning in a playful and engagingway. Theyrepresent an emerging research area, enabling learn-ing about the environment and an exchange of con-trasting views on proposed urban, regional, or land-

scape plans. By using serious games, the participantsare given the possibility to interact with the designsubmitted, to vote for the preferred option or evenchat with other participants (Poplin, 2014). Recenttrends in video games industry focus on improvinggraphic quality and easy to use attractive interface,this fact led to using video games in urban studies,teaching and research (Rufat et al., 2009). One of themost common game to be used is the SimCity, whichis developed by William Wrigh. SimCity is used alsoin universities laboratories for urban simulation re-search as a tool for participatory design in urban con-text (Hanzl, 2007).

EARLY DESIGNArchitectural design process in its general terms, isa procedure intended to the improvement of theproject through socially situated reflection-in-action(Schon, 1983). In the early phases of the architec-tural design process the level of detail is typicallylow: requirements, constraints, larger scale problemsand priorities are exposed and restructured beforegetting into details and smaller issues.This under-standing of the design process as a progression ofideas and inputs canbe confrontedwithdifferent fac-tors (Cross, 2011). In the early design phase, eval-uating the performance of the concepts on largerscale issues can be achieved on different basis in-cluding: energy analysis, daylight modelling, costand schedule impacts, or even structural analysis. In-deed, one of the important task in architectural earlydesign stages (or even in the reconsideration of aninterior layout) is that architects should find solu-tions to the organization of the interior space plan-ning layout to have an appropriate relations betweenthe different spaces and functions (Calixto et Celani,2015). For architectural space planning problem, ar-chitects explore solutions based on varied parame-ters. Various parameters such as input features canbe taken into account for the space planning layout,these parameters can be related to the adjacency,distance, functional arrangement, occupancy, work-spacearea standards, financial allocation, sustainable

COLLABORATIVE & PARTICIPATIVE DESIGN - Volume 1 - eCAADe 36 | 431

factors such as energy conservation, daylight, view...(Hassanain, 2010). Besides these, the inclusion ofusers and their preferences in the reflection-in-actionprocesses in the early design phase can help the re-structuring of the design requirements andmake thefinal design more responsive to the people’s needs(Commission for Architecture and the Built Environ-ment, 2008).

EXTENDING COMPUTATIONAL DESIGNComputational tools are fundamentally shifting ar-chitectural design practice to another paradigm. Inparticular, parametric design tools developed in thelast three decades allow the designers to make de-cisions earlier in the design process based on amulti-objective optimizationworkflows (Brown et al.,2016). In parametric design methods, some con-straints can be implemented in the early designphase which can be maintained during the designprocess. These constraints can be related to require-ments, contextual and physical aspect. However, theparticipation of users in these processes is not sup-ported sufficiently. The participation of the users inthe early design phase can empower the design pro-cess by the inclusion of non-physical factors relatedto human preferences aspects. The current practiceof parametric designmethods needs to be extendedto include non-physical aspects in the early designphase. A significant challenge in this venture is thatthese aspects cannot be easily parameterized andoptimized. Rather they can be reflected upon, dis-cussed and negotiated during the course of design.Therefore newways of enabling in parametric designmethods need to be developed to trigger and sup-port meaningful social changes, focusing on emerg-ing forms of collaboration (Manzini, 2015).

Several tools have been developed in order tosupport the parametric design methods: Grasshop-per a plugin for Rhino, Dynamo a plugin for Revit,Generative component, Houdini... These tools arebased on visual programming languages accessibleby a limited audience. With the digital and para-metric era, design workflow continues to be a close

collaboration between different stakeholders, (archi-tects, engineers, contractors, and fabricators). Thiscollaboration tends to be practical and ensures a bet-ter coordination of the project for supporting whatManzini (2015) calls “expert design”. This contrastswith “diffuse design” where the designers aim to trig-ger and support meaningful social changes betweenthe experts as well with the users, develop and testemerging forms of collaboration. Even for the pro-fessionals, the adoption of computational technolo-gies (in particular parametric design tools) seems tohave varying degrees of practical experiential knowl-edge. Thus these tools are generating inaccessibleand isolated areas of specialists. Nevertheless, thelack of participatory approaches in these methods,especially in the early design phase is a major chal-lenge in the daily work basis in particular with theparadigm shift of architecture towards amore partic-ipatory and social direction. As introduced above, asignificant problem of the parametric design processis the exclusion of non-physical factors related to hu-man aspects and the intense focus on performativeand optimization based design answering technicalissues (solar, energy, cost...).

The application of computational methods forspace planning has been increasing recently withboth research and real-application fields. Many aca-demic researches was developed trying to investi-gate in the space planning generated with com-putational tools. Various applications of evolution-ary computing and parametric approaches were de-ployed for architectural space planning generation(Dutta and Sarthak 2011). These applications varyin terms of objectives and desired output. Someresearches considered the space layout and func-tional parameters, whereas other researches havebeen focusing in also in the energy and light factors.Autodesk researchers (Nagy et al., 2016) also haveworked in developing a flexible workflow for gener-ative design applied to architectural space planning.First, a computational design model was able createa variety of office layouts including locating all neces-sary programs and people using a small set of input

432 | eCAADe 36 - COLLABORATIVE & PARTICIPATIVE DESIGN - Volume 1

parameters. Bahrehmand et al (2017) proposed anapproach for space planning addressing subjectiveaspects of the design; the research has developedalso a genetic algorithmwith amulti-parental recom-binationmethod that improves the chance of gener-ating higher quality offspring. This method was ableto generate satisfactory feasible floor plans based onspatial quality metrics and designer’s taste.

OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCHThe scope of this study covers the early design stagein general, although the case study developed dealswith the spatial planning, the general approach cancover different situations in early design such as ur-ban planning. Studies have been recently madeby the author for the configuration of the early ur-ban space planning for refugees camp (Daher, 2016).As shown in this research, for each space planningon building or urban level, fixed parameters or con-straints should be taken into account, such as build-ing physical constraints, orientation and others...

In this research we will rethink the way the earlydesign process is developed in order to allow the par-ticipationof users in theearly designphase. Theneed

is to include not only the physical factors to the earlyparametric design process, but also the non-physicalfactors, and investigate in the participation processof the end users as being one of the solution for em-powering the design process by the non-physical pa-rameters. Information development and new tech-nologies, such as 3D modelling software, communi-cation platforms and computer serious games are of-fering newpotentials of participation in the design offacilities. Emergent information and communicationtechnologies and tools can support as foundation fora reconsideration of the culture of design. The needis to develop processes and tools to support differentscale of users’ feedback to inform the different scaleof decisionmaking process in the early design phase.

In this context, the central research questions tobe addressed in this study are:

1. How can we enable different levels of partici-pation the early phases of parametric design?

2. How can we include non-physical factors re-lated to human aspects in the early paramet-ric design process?

3. What are the key challenges of and critical fac-tors for this task?

Figure 1Conceptualframework for thethe participativedesign

COLLABORATIVE & PARTICIPATIVE DESIGN - Volume 1 - eCAADe 36 | 433

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKTo address the issues raised in the state of art weconsider a framework conceptually (Figure 1) repre-senting (1): processes and actors involved in the par-ticipative design, the associated data (2) and digi-tal technologies (3) enabling to provide a computer-based participative parametric modeling environ-ment.

METHODOLOGYOFWORKTo answer these questions, a case study will be intro-duced for the design of an office building located inLuxembourg. The focus is to enable the participationof a group of users in the design of their interior lay-out office building in the early design phase. Oncedefined, the participation process is implementedthrough several computer-based systems. To enablethe participation process a set of of architectural an-alytic and parametric design tools will be combinedwith other participative methods such as a tangibletabletop and graphical interfaces. Design decisionswill be constantly evaluated with the use of para-metric design tools allowing the users to evaluateeach decision and modification in real-time analyticeffects; visual indicators on the graphical interfaceprovide constantly information about the modifica-tions. To achieve the objectives of this research, thefollowing activities were carried out:

1. Literature review of the published academicand practical researches considering thespace planning and management and para-metric approach.

2. Literature reviewabout the technologiesusedfor the participation of the users in the designof their facilities.

3. Identifying the parameters that should betaken into consideration during the spaceplanning design, and identifying which fromthese parameters should considered into ourcase study.

4. Conducting different meetings with respon-sible of the space planning group in ourcase study organisation to have some insights

about how this task is usually performed.5. Developing a prototype answering the re-

search objectives.

DEVELOPMENTDesign processThe participative design process relies on a platformdescribed below (Figure 2). This is a combination ofdifferent tools and devices to enable 1) the participa-tion of users in the design, 2) the of design problemsbased on library predefined in the parametric soft-ware and 3) the visualization of the results and thedata manipulated, it is expected to use devices suchas the tangible tabletop, touch screens and the aug-mented reality creating a better understanding andvisualization.

Identification of parameters. This design processis developed to answer the requirements and needsrelated to the management of an office building lo-cated in Luxembourg. The organizations occupiesmultiple buildings in different locations, while theuse case considers the relocation of worskpaces intoone of these buildings. The need is expressed by the“space management unit” to develop tools that helpin the space planning strategies for new building inearly design stage. The parameters identified to in-fluence the configuration of spaces are related to the:

1. Regroupment and relation between the dif-ferent departments and the organisation.

2. Adjacency and distance (horizontal and ver-tical distance) between the divisions and/orunits.

3. The circulation between the workspace areasand the informal areas (such as small informalmeetings rooms, coffee areas,...).

4. Health, safety and well-being factors are notthe main focus in this use case. However, fac-tors like the views (meeting rooms to be indark areas or areas with no view), and the fireexit (rooms to respect the standard distanceto fire exit doors) are considered.

434 | eCAADe 36 - COLLABORATIVE & PARTICIPATIVE DESIGN - Volume 1

Figure 2Schematicdescription of theparticipative designprocess platform

In this prototype we use the concept of non-physicalparameters as important parameters to take into ac-count in the design process willing to create informalinteraction between collaborators which contributesto knowledge sharing and team building. The non-physical parameters are collected by satisfaction sur-veys conducted with employees located in differentbuildings of this organization. The surveys are deal-ing with: open spaces vs. closed offices, view to theexterior, noise and privacy which has an impact onthe adjacencies.

Set different objectives. For each optimization pro-cess, objectives should be set in order to define theexpected solution to answer the requirements. These

objectives can be related to cost, environment, en-ergy, space allocation, and routing distance...For thisproject we set with the space management unit dif-ferent objectives related to the following aspects:

1. Cost of the configurations proposed2. Space allocation efficiency (increasing the

rentable area and the density of worksta-tions).

3. Space productivity (proximity and distancebetween different spaces).

4. Satisfaction of collaborators (interaction withinformal areas, privacy and visual access ofdesks).

COLLABORATIVE & PARTICIPATIVE DESIGN - Volume 1 - eCAADe 36 | 435

Users’ involvement in the design process. The par-ticipation of the users and in particular the spacemanagement unit is enabled by giving them the con-trol of the design parameters. Colored and graphi-cal charts will be illustrated to provide some insightto the decisions and iterations made. Users will beable to add, remove walls, generating future layoutsby predicting the number of employees and the allo-cation of eachheaddivision. Userswill also be able tofix the proximity between the different departmentsspaces and when needed they were able to modifythis proximity. Users will be able to set objectives re-lated to the cost of different space planning iterationand to choose between the different options.

PrototypeA prototype is being developed at the time writingthis article, the main features of this prototype are:

Visualisation. Visualization devices were used tohelp the space planning department to understandthe spaces being designed. Augmented reality is thepotential mean for representatives to conduct testsand visualize the proposed layouts of the workingspace. By creating a 3D model of the working space,users were able to interact with the model via theHololens headset. This helped a projection in thereal context of the real space and better understandthe solutions proposed. The team is given the abil-ity to easily interact with the model and make somechanges in the configuration and update the model.Simultaneously, visualization of the plan will be pro-jected on a digital tabletop. Users are capable to in-teractwith theplansof theworking spacesover a tan-gible interface tabletop that will be mainly used for:

1. Modifying the collected data on spreadsheetsand defining the relation between the differ-ent spaces,

2. Adding some physical constraints (related tothe building geometry, external constraintssuch as view, energy, daylight and noise),

3. Defining the density of the workstations dur-ing different time in the year and predictingthe needed spaces for the upcoming collabo-

rators,4. Fixing objectives and setting the importance

level of each objective.

Optimization. Several optimization plug-ins are in-tegrated into parametric modelling software allow-ingnumerical simulation and iterationof different so-lutions. This helps the users to evaluate the design it-eration in terms of KPIs (Key Performance Indicators)for the fixed objectives.

Envisaged participation level in the prototype.The level of user participation (Table 1) in the de-sign process varies from an informing participationwhere users ares being informed of necessary infor-mation, to a direct participation where users are ableto have a direct involvement in the design process bysetting the objectives and the level of importance ofeach one. Each department representative is able toset and change by slider each objective according tothe needs. Other intermediate type of participationare also envisaged in the prototype such as consul-tation where the users will be answering surveys forthe post-occupancy evaluation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONConclusionThis prototype is a first try to enhance the participa-tion of the users in the design of their building spacesand in particular the space planning layout througha parametric approach. The idea is to incorporatethe simulations and iterationof different solutions forthe space planning in different participative devicesand technologies (Augmented reality, digital table-top) where users are able to interact with the spaceplanning layout in the early stages of parametric de-sign. The user is able to explore possible scenariosand design alternatives, by manipulating the param-eters values and evaluating in real time the resultsof the modification. The main idea in co-designingis that everyone brings something important to thediscussion and that everyone is capable of develop-ing ideas, expressing them, being creative and beingpart in the decision making. Users are seen as ex-

436 | eCAADe 36 - COLLABORATIVE & PARTICIPATIVE DESIGN - Volume 1

Table 1Envisagedparticipation levelin the prototype

perts on the situation and there is shift from apassiverole to a co-creator or representative role in the de-sign process. However, this prototype raises severalquestions related to theparticipationofusers and thenumber of users that can participate in the design.Another question raised in this prototype is the incor-porationof the artificial intelligence andagent-basedmodelling for the design of workplace.

DiscussionIn the co-design process, the users are collaboratingwith the spatial planning experts and architect in thedesign of a new spatial environment. This createsnew roles for both users and the planning experts orthe architects. The role of the spatial experts or ar-chitects is to help users to understand the configura-tion qualities and to point on some issues that needtobe solved. Thedesigners are creating a set ofmeta-design where parameters, constraints and objectivesare fixed. Thismeta-design is creating a limited spaceof solutions and iterations that satisfy the needs andrequirements of the users. As for the users, they helpto find the main focus and the most important as-pects to be taken into account by the designers andthey are being active in the design process. These ac-tions are being taken into account at different stageof the design process and at different levels of partic-ipation. Users are also able to justify and explore dif-ferent solutions and participate in the decision mak-ing process.

ChallengesThe main challenge is to incorporate a number ofusers and representatives in the design process de-

veloped for this case study. This is resolved by dele-gating the role of the participation for representativeto be involved in the design. Another challenge isdealing with non-professional in the computationalenvironment and the software used, therefore, it isimportant towork on a light easy to use platform andexplain to users how this process works. Another im-portant challenge is to transform all useful require-ments into a digital model with the appropriate con-trol on parameters.

Another challenge raised is the discussion con-ducted about equality between the users. The de-signer as a facilitator has a new task towards achiev-ing this desired equality between the participants.The prototype provides tools that develop under-standing of the configuration made with a trans-parency in implementing of the different guidelines,however, the discussion about equality is raised inparticular for assignment of the spaces to each de-partments.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThis paper is a part of thePhD thesis entitled “Methodand tool-set for data-driven optimization of designsolutions in parametricmodeling systems” at KU Leu-ven Faculty of Architecture and the Luxembourg In-stitute of Science and Technology.

REFERENCESAbras, C, Maloney-Krichmar, D, Preece, J and Bain-

bridge, W 2004 ’User-centered design’, Encyclope-dia of Human-Computer Interaction. Thousand Oaks:Sage Publications, 37(4), pp. 445-456

COLLABORATIVE & PARTICIPATIVE DESIGN - Volume 1 - eCAADe 36 | 437

Al-kodmany, K 1999, ’Using visualization techniquesfor enhancing public participation in planning anddesign: process, implementation, and evaluation.’,Landscape and Urban Planning, 45 Issue 1, pp. 37-45

Andersen, L.B, Danholt, P, Halskov, K, Hansen, N.B andLauritsen, P 2015, ’Participation as a matter of con-cern in participatory design.’, CoDesign, 11(3-4), pp.250-261

Arnstein, S.R 1969, ’A ladder of citizen participation.’,Journal of the American Institute of planners, 35(4),pp. 216-224

Bahrehmand, A, Batard, T, Marques, R, Evans, A and Blat,J 2017, ’Optimizing layout using spatial quality met-rics and user preferences’, Graphical Models, 93, pp.25-38

Brown, N 2016 ’Early-stage integration of architecturaland structural performance in a parametric multi-objective design tool’, International Conference onStructures and Architecture

Calixto, V and Celani, G 2015 ’A literature review forspace planning optimization using an evolutionaryalgorithm approach: 1992-2014.’, Proceedings of the19th Conference of the Iberoamerican Society of Digi-tal Graphics - vol. 2, Brasil, pp. 662-671

Cimerman, B 2000 ’Participatory Design in Architecture:can computers help?.’, In PDC, pp. 40-48

Cross, N and Roozenburg, N 1992, ’Modelling the designprocess in engineering and in architecture.’, Journalof Engineering Design, 3(4), pp. 325-337

Daher, E, Kubicki, S and Guerriero, A 2016 ’Data-drivendevelopment in the smart city. Generative designfor refugee camps in Luxembourg.’, Proceedings ofthe Sustainable Places 2016 Conference., France

Davidson, C.H, Johnson, C, Lizarralde, G, Dikmen, N andSliwinski, A 2007, ’Truths and myths about commu-nity participation in post-disaster housing projects.’,Habitat international, 31(1), pp. 100-115

Dutta, K and Sarthak, S 2011 ’Architectural space plan-ning using evolutionary computing approaches: areview.’, Artificial Intelligence Review, 36(4), p. 311

Hanzl, M2007, ’Information technology as a tool for pub-lic participation in urban planning: a review of ex-periments and potentials.’, Journal of Design Studies,28(3), pp. 289-307.

Hassanain, M. A 2010, ’Analysis of factors influencing of-fice workplace planning and design in corporate fa-cilities’, Journal of Building Appraisal, 6(4), pp. 183-197

Healey, P 1998, ’Building institutional capacity throughcollaborative approaches to urban planning.’, Envi-ronment and planning A, 30(9), pp. 1531-1546

Jones, P. D., Petrescu., D and Till, J 2009, Architecture andParticipation, Taylor and Francis, New York

Kingston, R 2007, ’Public participation in local policydecision-making: the role of web-based mapping.’,The Cartographic Journal, 44(2), pp. 138-144

Kwiecińsk, i and , 2014 K and Słyk, J 2014 ’System for cus-tomer participation in the design process of mass-customized houses’, Proceeding from eCAADe 32, pp.207-215

Manzini, E 2014, ’Making things happen: Social innova-tion and design.’, Design Issues, 30(1), pp. 57-66

Maquil, V, Psik, T, Wagner, I and Wagne, M 2007 ’Ex-pressive interactions - supporting collaboration inurban design’, Proceedings of the 2007 internationalACM conference on supporting group work., Florida.USA.

Nagy, D, Lau, D, Locke, J, Stoddart, J, Villaggi, L, Wang, Rand Benjamin, D 2017 ’Project Discover: An Appli-cation of Generative Design for Architectural SpacePlanning.’, Symposium on Simulation for Architectureand Urban Design

Nuojua, J and Kuutti, K 2008 ’Communication basedwebmapping: a new approach for acquisition of localknowledge for urban planning.’, Proceedings of the12th international conference on Entertainment andmedia in the ubiquitous era, pp. 136-140

Poplin, A 2014, ’Digital serious game for urban plan-ning: B3—Design your Marketplace!’, Environmentand Planning B: Planning and Design, 41(3), pp. 493-511

Rufat, S and Minassian, H.T 2009 ’Video games and ur-ban simulation: new tools or new tricks?’, Interna-tional Conference Emergence in Geographical Space:Concepts, Methods andModels

Sanders, E.B.N and Stappers, P.J. 2008, ’Co-creation andthe new landscapes of design’, Co-design, 4(1), pp.5-18

Sanoff, H 2000, Community participation methods in de-sign and planning., John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York

Schon, D. A 1983, The reflective practicioner: how profes-sionals think inaction (Vol. 1)., NewYork: Basic books.

Sennett, R 2012, Together: The Rituals, Pleasures andPolitics of Cooperation, Yale University Press„ NewHaven, Connecticut

Wagner, I, Basile, M, Ehrenstrasser, L, Maquil, V, Terrin,J.J and Wagner, M 2009 ’Supporting community en-gagement in the city: urban planning in the MR-tent.’, Proceedings of the fourth international confer-ence on Communities and technologies, pp. 185-194

438 | eCAADe 36 - COLLABORATIVE & PARTICIPATIVE DESIGN - Volume 1