فرآیندها و روش‌های مشارکتی به‌کاررفته در معماری مسکونی: یک مرور سیستماتیک
محورهای موضوعی : معماری
علی اصغر عبدالکریمی
1
,
عباس یزدانفر
2
,
ندا سادات صحراگرد منفرد
3
*
1 - فارغ‌التحصیل کارشناسی ارشد معماری مسکونی، دانشکدۀ معماری دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران، ایران.
2 - دانشیار، دانشکدۀ معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران، ایران.
3 - استادیار، دانشکدۀ معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران، ایران.
کلید واژه: معماری مشارکتی, طراحی مشارکتی, فرآیند مشارکت, روش‌های مشارکت, فعالیت‌ها و ابزارهای مشارکتی, معماری مسکونی,
چکیده مقاله :
رویکرد مشارکتی در دوران کنونی یک رویکرد تثبیت‌شده از حیث نظری است و کاربردهای بسیاری نیز در حوزه عمل دارد. معماری (و طراحی) مشارکتی نیز گرایشی آزموده و واجد موفقیت‌ها و دستاوردهای متعدد است. اما همچنان سوالات و چالش‌های زیادی پیرامون آن وجود دارد. از جمله پرسش‌های مهم دربارۀ مشارکت، چگونگی انتخاب فعالیت و روش مشارکتی از میان گزینه‌های متنوع، چگونگی پیاده‌سازی و میزان مؤثر بودن روش‌های مشارکتی می‌باشند. هدف پژوهش حاضر گزارش و بررسی این روش‌ها و فرآیندهای مشارکتی از طریق مرور سیستماتیک منابع مرتبط است. در پایان از ترکیب نتایج به دست آمده، یک فرآیند مشارکتی برای معماری مسکونی در چهار گام معرفی و آشنایی، بررسی وضع موجود، طراحی، و بازبینی و اصلاح همراه فعالیت‌های قدم به قدم آن پیشنهاد شده است. روایی و پایایی پژوهش با کمک دو فرد متخصص و از طریق پرسشنامۀ دوارزشی کنترل شد که در آن ضریب کاپای کوهن ۰/۷۴۴ در سطح معناداری ۰/۰۱۱ به دست آمد.
Participation is a well-established approach across various academic and pragmatic fields, including architecture and design, supported by robust theoretical and practical foundations. Despite its proven merits and successes, it continues to face critical questions and challenges, particularly concerning the techniques, methods, and processes involved. Key issues include the extensive range of reported techniques and methods, the criteria for selecting appropriate approaches, implementation considerations, and the suitability and effectiveness of participation
Regarding these issues, and as an initial step, this study employs a systematic review methodology to collect and analyze recent literature on participation techniques, methods, and processes, providing designers with insights into selecting suitable approaches for participatory projects in residential architecture. As a result, a four-stage participatory process is proposed integrating selected findings, which is appropriate for residential projects. The validity and reliability of the study were assessed by two experts using a dichotomous questionnaire, yielding a Cohen’s kappa coefficient of 0.744 at a significance level of 0.011
This study compiles data from articles indexed in Scopus and Web of Science between 2000 and 2025, using the keywords participatory design, participatory planning, urban participation, participation tools, and participation methods in titles or abstracts. A total of 4,128 articles were identified, from which 167 duplicates were removed, leaving 3,961 articles for review. After screening titles, abstracts, and conclusions, 3,374 unrelated papers were excluded. The remaining 587 articles were fully reviewed and prioritized based on their relevance to the study’s aim, e.g., the scale and use of the reported project, or if the paper directly reports the methods and techniques used in the project. This phase yielded 72 final selections. From these 72 articles, 55 participation methods and techniques—each with varying implementations—were identified, alongside six distinct participation processes. These findings provide a foundation for designing effective participatory architecture processes by appropriately integrating selected techniques, methods, and processes within a participatory framework
Drawing from this data, a four-stage participatory process is proposed: (1) Getting to Know, (2) Current Situation Assessment, (3) Design, and (4) Feedback and Modification. The first stage focuses on understanding the people and their environment and establishing trust and cooperation between locals and architects/researchers. The second stage employs a sorting task to reflect and analyze the house's spatial and functional aspects, identifying both favorable and problematic qualities. In the third stage, a location task and insights from the previous stage help participants arrange different spaces in an imagined house. This step can be enhanced using 1 m² square or small-scale furniture models, aiding participants in comprehending spatial dimensions and household tasks. Next, the architectural design of the house is completed by the architect/researcher based on the drafts and decisions of the third stage. The final stage is for presenting the completed design to participants for their feedback, refinement, and modification, utilizing both 3D modeling and physical prototypes. This structured approach provides a sound framework for participatory design, ensuring both active user involvement in shaping architectural spaces and quality residential architecture for users
۱. اسلامی، سید غلامرضا؛ و کامل‌نیا، حامد. (1392). معماری جمعی، از نظریه تا عمل (ویرایش اول). تهران: مؤسسۀ انتشارات دانشگاه تهران. https://press.ut.ac.ir/book_2276_%D9%85%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C+%D8%AC%D9%85%D8%B9%DB%8C+%D8%A7%D8%B2+%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%B1%DB%8C%D9%87+%D8%AA%D8%A7+%D8%B9%D9%85%D9%84+3444.html
۲. پورابراهیمی، محمد؛ و شریف، حمیدرضا. (1394). جستاری در چگونگی مشارکت کاربران در فرآیند طراحی. دومین کنگره بین‌المللی افقهای جدید در معماری و شهرسازی، (ص1–8). تهران: دانشکدة هنر و معماری دانشگاه تربیت مدرس. https://civilica.com/doc/531529
۳. حبیبی، امین؛ نیک‌کار، محمد؛ علی‌آبادی، محمد؛ و اسکندرپور، صدیقه. (1403). نگرش پایدار از نتیجه بر رویه؛ تجربۀ طراحی فضاهای شهری براساس مشارکت اجتماعی در شیراز. باغ نظر، ۲۱(134)، ۲۱-۳۶. https://doi.org/10.22034/bagh.2024.436380.5541
۴. حبیبی، محسن؛ و سعیدی رضوانی، هادی. (1384). شهرسازی مشارکتی؛ کاوشی نظری در شرایط ایران. نشریه هنرهای زیبا، 24، 15–24. https://jhz.ut.ac.ir/article_13877.html
۵. دانشپور، عبدالهادی؛ و غفاری آذر، زهرا. (1399). طراحی شهری با رویکرد مشارکت همکاری‌جویانه، از ایده تا طرح. موردپژوهی: میدان هروی تهران. باغ نظر، 17(82)، 5–20. https://doi.org/10.22034/bagh.2019.134125.3605
۶. شهربانو پورمحمدی، پریا. (1391). مشارکت طراحی، پیوندی میان گرایشهای منطقه گرایی با نیازهای امروزجامعه. اولین همایش ملی اندیشه ها و فناوریهای نو در معماری، (ص443–449). تبریز: دپارتمان معماري و شهرسازي انستيتو مقاوم‌سازي لرزه‌اي ايران. https://civilica.com/doc/324384
۷. علایی، امیرعلی؛ یزدانفر، سید عباس؛ حسینی، سید باقر؛ و نوروزیان ملکی، سعید. (1399). چارچوبی برای مؤلفه‌های پایداری اجتماعی مسکن بر مبنای تحلیل محتوای پژوهش‌های مرتبط. معماری و شهرسازی پایدار، 8(2)، 81-۹۴. https://doi.org/10.22061/jsaud.2020.6241.1631
۸. علی‌الحسابی، مهران؛ و یوسف زمانی، مهرداد. (1389). فرآیند طراحی معماری-تعامل میان طراح و بهره بردار (مدل‌یابی مشارکت در طراحی مسکن شخصی‌ساز). نشریة هنرهای زیبا- معماری و شهرسازی، 2(43)، 31–42. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.22286020.1389.2.43.3.4
۹. کامل‌نیا، حامد. (1392). چارچوبی نوین برای تعامل معماری جمعی در طراحی مجموعه های مسکونی معاصر. نقش جهان، 3(2)، 63–73. http://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.23224991.1392.3.2.1.0
۱۰. کامل‌نیا، حامد. (1399). نظریۀ «معماری جمعی» در معماری معاصر کشورهای اسلامی. فردوس هنر، ۱(1)، 70–86. https://doi.org/10.30508/fhja.2020.44654
۱۱. مرتضوی، احمد؛ انصاری، حمیدرضا؛ و علی‌پور، لیلا. (1403). معماری و مشارکت: مرور مضامین و چشم‌اندازهای در حال ظهور. معماری و شهرسازی آرمان‌شهر، ۱۷ (۴۹)، ۱۱۹-۱۰۳. https://www.armanshahrjournal.com/article_198343.html
۱۲. هدایتی، حبیب، و غفوریان، میترا. (1395). طراحی مشارکتی مسکن راهکاری برای رسیدن به پایداری اجتماعی. چهارمین کنگره بین المللی عمران، معماری و توسعه شهری، (1–14). تهران: دانشگاه شهید بهشتی. https://civilica.com/doc/619214/
۱۳. یوسف زمانی، مهرداد. (1389). مدل ساختار مفهومی درس «اصول طراحی معماری مشاركتی» (درس پيشنهادی كارشناسی معماری). نشریة معماری و شهرسازی ایران، 2(1)، 69–76. https://doi.org/10.30475/isau.2011.61941
1. Abdalla, S. S., Elariane, S. A., & El Defrawi, S. H. (2016). Decision-Making Tool for Participatory Urban Planning and Development: Residents’ Preferences of Their Built Environment. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 142(1), 04015011. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000289
2. Albadra, D., Elamin, Z., Adeyeye, K., Polychronaki, E., Coley, D. A., Holley, J., & Copping, A. (2021). Participatory design in refugee camps: Comparison of different methods and visualization tools. Building Research & Information, 49(2), 248–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2020.1740578
3. Al-Kodmany, K. (2001). Bridging the gap between technical and local knowledge: Tools for promoting community-based planning and design. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 18, 110–130. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43030568
4. Al-Nammari, F. (2013). Participatory urban upgrading and power: Lessons learnt from a pilot project in Jordan. Habitat International, 39, 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2013.01.001
5. Borucka, J., Czyż, P., Mazurkiewicz, W., Pancewicz, Ł., & Perzyna, I. (2021). Improving social competencies of architecture students through participatory design of marketplace regeneration. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 19(1), 71-78. http://www.wiete.com.au/journals/WTE&TE/Pages/Vol.19,%20No.1%20(2021)/11-Borucka-J.pdf
6. Brookfield, K., Scott, I., Tinker, A., & Ward Thompson, C. (2020). Perspectives on “Novel” Techniques for Designing Age-Friendly Homes and Neighborhoods with Older Adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(5), 1800. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051800
7. Bukovszki, V., Dóci, G., & Reith, A. (2021). Coding Engines in Participatory Social Housing Design—A Case to Revisit Pattern Languages. Sustainability, 13(6), 3367. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063367
8. Combrinck, C., & Porter, C. J. (2021). Co-design in the architectural process. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 15(3), 738–751. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-06-2020-0105
9. Dayaratne, R. (2016). Creating places through participatory design: Psychological techniques to understand people’s conceptions. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 31(4), 719–741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-016-9497-2
10. De Carli, B., & Frediani, A. A. (2021). Situated perspectives on the city: A reflection on scaling participation through design. Environment and Urbanization, 33(2), 376–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/09562478211028066
11. Deane, L., & Smoke, E. (2010). Designing Affordable Housing with Cree, Anishinabe, and Métis People. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 19(1), 51–70. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44320868
12. Del Gaudio, C., Franzato, C., & de Oliveira, A. J. (2017). The challenge of time in community-based participatory design. URBAN DESIGN International, 22(2), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-016-0017-5
13. Derr, V. (2015). Integrating community engagement and children’s voices into design and planning education. CoDesign, 11(2), 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1054842
14. Devos, T., Blust, S., & Desmet, M. (2018). Valuating narrative accounts in participatory planning processes: A case of co-creative storytelling in Antwerp, Belgium In Devisch, O., Huybrechts, L., & De Ridder, R. (Eds.), Participatory Design Theory: Using Technology and Social Media to Foster Civic Engagement (pp. 15-28). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315110332
15. Ghaziani, R. (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
16. Huisman, E., Appel-Meulenbroek, R., & Kort, H. (2018). A structural approach for the redesign of a small-scale care facility as a guideline for decision-makers. Intelligent Buildings International, 12(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2018.1493569
17. Iversen, O. S., & Dindler, C. (2014). Sustaining participatory design initiatives. CoDesign, 10(3–4), 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2014.963124
18. Kpamma, Z. E., Adjei-Kumi, T., Ayarkwa, J., & Adinyira, E. (2017). Choosing By Advantages incorporated framework for a user-involved design process. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 14(3), 194–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2017.1341831
19. Krommyda, V., Somarakis, G., & Stratigea, A. (2019). Integrating offline and online participation tools for engaging citizens in public space management: Application in the peripheral town of Karditsa-Greece. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 11(1), 89. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEG.2019.098806
20. Kuronen, M., Majamaa, W., Raisbeck, P., & Heywood, C. (2012). Including prospective tenants and homeowners in the urban development process in Finland. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 27(3), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-012-9269-6
21. Lee, B., & Na, I. S. (2019). A case study of a community center project based on appropriate technology as a community capacity building of underdeveloped country. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 18(2), 43–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2019.1595628
22. Manuel, J., Vigar, G., Bartindale, T., & Comber, R. (2017). Participatory Media: Creating Spaces for Storytelling in Neighbourhood Planning. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, USA, 1688–1701. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025745
23. McTague, C., & Jakubowski, S. (2013). Marching to the beat of a silent drum: Wasted consensus-building and failed neighborhood participatory planning. Applied Geography, 44, 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.07.019
24. Melcher, K. (2013). Equity, Empowerment, or Participation: Prioritizing Goals in Community Design. Landscape Journal, 32(2), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.32.2.167
25. Milton, A., Winton, E., & Hollis, E. (2011). Remodelling Home: Engaging the Public in Architectural and Design Debate through Participatory Design. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal—Annual Review, 5(4), 509–526. https://doi.org/10.18848/1833-1874/CGP/v05i04/38149
26. Moatasim, F. (2005). Practice of Community Architecture: A Case Study of Zone of Opportunity Housing Co-operative, Montreal [Unpublished master’s thesis]. McGill University.
27. Mokhtarmanesh, S., & Ghomeishi, M. (2019). Participatory design for a sustainable environment: Integrating school design using students’ preferences. Sustainable Cities and Society, 51, 101762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101762
28. Mota, N. (2019). Álvaro Siza’s Negotiated Code: Meaningful Communication and Citizens’ Participation in the Urban Renewal of The Hague (Netherlands) in the 1980s. Urban Planning, 4(3), 250–264. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v4i3.2120
29. Murray, C., Doak, J., McNeil, K., & Oms, P. (2020). Participatory Design Methods When Working in Remote Locations: The Case of Red Puna in North West Argentina. The Design Journal, 23(2), 239–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2020.1726663
30. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
31. Pawlowski, C. S., Schmidt, T., Nielsen, J. V., Troelsen, J., & Schipperijn, J. (2019). Will the children use it?—A RE-AIM evaluation of a local public open space intervention involving children from a deprived neighbourhood. Evaluation and Program Planning, 77, 101706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101706
32. Payne, S. R., Mackrill, J., Cain, R., Strelitz, J., & Gate, L. (2014). Developing interior design briefs for health-care and well-being centres through public participation. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 11(4), 264–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2014.923288
33. Pirinen, A., & Tervo, A. (2020). What can we share? A design game for developing the shared spaces in housing. Design Studies, 69, 100941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2020.04.001
34. Purwanto, E., Sugiri, A., & Novian, R. (2017). Determined Slum Upgrading: A Challenge to Participatory Planning in Nanga Bulik, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Sustainability, 9(7), 1261. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071261
35. Ravina, D. V., Shih, R. R. L., & Medvegy, G. (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
36. Reijula, J., Ruohomäki, V., Lahtinen, M., & Reijula, K. (2017). Participatory facility design challenges in two university hospitals. Intelligent Buildings International, 12(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2017.1342591
37. Rid, W., Haider, W., Ryffel, A., & Beardmore, B. (2018). Visualisations in Choice Experiments: Comparing 3D Film-sequences and Still-images to Analyse Housing Development Alternatives. Ecological Economics, 146, 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.10.019
38. Saleh, I. S. S., Ismail, Mostafa Refaat Ahmed, & Faggal, Ahmed Atef Eldesouky. (2020). 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. http://www.irphouse.com/ijert20/ijertv13n12_128.pdf
39. Salter, J. D., Campbell, C., Journeay, M., & Sheppard, S. R. J. (2009). The digital workshop: Exploring the use of interactive and immersive visualisation tools in participatory planning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(6), 2090–2101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.08.023
40. Sanoff, H. (2000). Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning (1st Edition). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-2046(00)00063-3
41. Sanders, E. B.-N., Brandt, E. & Binder, T. (2010). A Framework for Organizing the Tools and Techniques of Participatory Design. Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference, 195-198. https://doi.org/10.1145/1900441.1900476
42. Severcan, Y. C. (2015). THE EFFECTS OF CHILDREN’S PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING AND DESIGN ACTIVITIES ON THEIR PLACE ATTACHMENT. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 32(4), 271–293. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44113116
43. Valladares, A. (2013). The Community Architect Program: Implementing participation-in-design to improve housing conditions in Cuba. Habitat International, 38, 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.09.004
44. Vercesi, M., Zaninelli, C., Simone, P., & Nettuno, L. (2018). Community planning activities for rehabilitation projects in Italy. The positive case of the children participatory design on the area of Vergomasco landfill in Odolo, Brescia. Ri-Vista. Research for Landscape Architecture, 16(1), 160–173. https://doi.org/10.13128/RV-22997
45. Zingoni, M. (2019). Prototyping process: Interior architecture as a social agency. Interiors, 9(3), 306–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/20419112.2019.1622234