1 Introduction

Participatory design has been a phenomenon for a long time: Architect Giancarlo De Carlo lectured at a conference on the role of the architect and the user in 1969 (De Carlo, 2005). However, participatory design has strong roots in Nordic countries, originating in computer-human relationships and workplace democracy movements in the 1970s, but today it covers many fields of design and research, including, but not limited to, architectural and urban design. (Bannon & Ehn, 2013; Spinuzzi, 2005) Conversely, the concept user-centric design comes from the United States. (Spinuzzi, 2005) The design principles, which grew from two different directions, have slowly influenced each other.

Participatory and user-centered design has taken inspiration from each other, and the classical roles of users, researchers, and designers have merged in the co-designing process. In user-centered design, the user produces the input for the design. Similarly, in participatory design, the user is seen more as a partner in the design process (Sanders & Stappers, 2008). The design work is done with, and not just directed at, the user. Participatory design aims to create solutions supporting user operations and conditions in architectural design (Spinuzzi, 2005). Participatory design can also be considered a research method, as it targets tacit information conveyed by users based on their experience that is sometimes difficult to express (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Interaction makes explicit information about end-users’ – such as residents’ – everyday perceptions and established practices, meaning information that can be documented in standard terms. Central to successful inclusion is collecting, documenting, and analyzing tacit knowledge. Due to the intensity of participation, too little attention is often paid to the systematic processing and analysis of data, which may leave valuable information silent (Horelli, 2002).

Luck (2018) has shown that architectural participatory design practices are not static; they have emerged and evolved during the last few decades. The practical methods and theories that underpin the practices have developed. That current interest in participatory design reflects new forms of architectural practice, where participatory interventions in everyday settings acknowledge and embrace value-pluralism. Hyde has claimed that there has been a reinvention in architectural practice since the 2008 global economic crisis. This era provided an opportunity for architects to innovate. (Hyde, 2012) The new generation of architects especially introduced new ways of working and diversifying their spatial practices, making room for collective, sustainable, and social processes. (Klooster, 2013).

Participatory design constructs new knowledge through its practice. In interventionist “democratic design experiments, the very ‘making’ in design is both a negotiation of how this experiment may unfold and a contribution to the repertoire of making democratic decisions” (Binder et al., 2015).

There is very little interest in participatory research on building renovations, although participatory methods could provide benefits to collecting residents’ views for the renovation. All the more attention in Finland has been paid to regional renewal and the involvement of residents in that context. This article does not focus on the renovation planning and designing processes or the outcome of resident involvement but addresses the challenges of design workshops and consultation with residents during. The article also reviews the chosen methods of information acquisition and involvement, as well as their established practices in the design process of residential apartment buildings, and evaluates the usefulness and adequacy of the methods.

2 Participating tools

There has always been ambivalence concerning tools and techniques for participatory design. On the one hand, new design approaches with users’ involvement were created, such as prototyping, future workshops, and design games widely accepted and used in the design community. On the other hand, design methods grew out of the critique of mainstream design for not accommodating the multiple voices of future users. Despite the ambivalence, the field of participatory design today facilitates discussion and dissemination of new tools and techniques. (Brandt et al., 2013) Different types of participatory approaches exist. The primary methods are on-site work and analysis, interviews, and engaging locals through a participatory group approach. These methods serve as procedures for both data collection and user involvement.

In user-centered design, Sanders and Dandavate (1999) recommend exploring the user experience by listening to what they say, looking at what they do, and allowing them to express their thoughts and dreams. Listening usually takes place through interviews and viewing through observation. According to objectives and results, Bruce Hanington (2003) has presented the division of human-centered research methods into traditional, applied, and innovative methods.

Traditional methods include group discussions, surveys, and interviews. These methods typically produce knowledge of large masses of people and result in figures, statistics, and tables. Use is often based on the fact that they confirm or refute previously perceived things. Therefore, they often do not open up new perspectives and may not be aware of the individual user’s needs. The applied data acquisition methods are qualitative and often borrowed from the humanities. These methods include observation and ethnographic methods and looking at computer interactions. The methods and use of traditional and applied data acquisition in design differ in the objectives of the study. Evaluative and critical research aims to identify and explain phenomena. (Mattelmäki, 2006.) Participatory design workshops and collages are innovative working methods. The methods work best in the early stages of a design that seeks and outlines the feelings, pleasures, values, and dreams of people/users. To get answers to these questions, tools are needed that, through metaphors and associations, help people express themselves and reveal things about themselves. In the case of user research, the aim is to gather qualitative information, inspiration, and understanding about users and their values, dreams, and needs as a starting point for the design. The result is the use of innovative methods to provide visual and verbal information that provides limited design and new possibilities for it. As design is always creative and visual, research/data acquisition methods should aim for the same features. The methods should also always be designed to suit the situation. (Mattelmäki, 2006; Celikoglu et al., 2017)

A survey is not an actual participatory design method but a means of obtaining research material that describes a wide range of people’s perceptions, opinions, attitudes, etc. A survey is often used as a preliminary study of an inclusive method. It is a relatively economical way to obtain information from a large number of people, but at the same time, the amount of information sought is somewhat limited. The challenge is that not all respondents may want or bother to answer many of the surveys that come to them so the loss may be significant. The loss means that the distribution of answers might be skewed: those who are not interested, oppose, or shy away from the survey topic are left out. The representativeness of the responses is then questionable.

Using participatory methods such as workshops in the beginning and midway of a planning project allows the designer to get feedback on draft plans, making it quick and cost-effective to try out ideas. Conversely, this method increases trust between the parties (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010). Participation often serves as a fruitful platform for new knowledge to emerge. New ideas and innovations can occur when experts from different fields bring together their perspectives and expertise. In a traditional user-driven design project using just questionnaires as residents’ surveys, the architects receive the information obtained from the users and may strive to include it in the final design. In participatory design, however, information is exchanged; at best, the plan is continuously developed with end-users, though the architect must ultimately take responsibility for the overall picture of the project and make decisions based on the available information. Conversely, showing participants how their ideas are reflected in the plans at the end of the project is essential and can crucially impact the outcome’s acceptance (Laframboise et al., 2002; Soikkeli, 2021).

2.1 Challenges

The limited influence of participation is one problem. If projects rely on minimum involvement, the benefits will be small. The low utilization rate of the material obtained by participating (Kahila-Tani et al., 2017) may be due to insufficient involvement and poor involvement methods. (Brown & Kyttä, 2014). Physical events with fewer participants, such as workshops, are often considered poor methods. The number of participants contributes to the study’s success. Thus, the more participants, the more credible and representative the conclusions. Therefore, web-based methods that collect multiple participants compared to workshops have recently become popular. Participants can also be encouraged to participate by providing information about the ongoing project and its purposes. For example, direct invitations, social media, and general announcements can be used for informational purposes (Jankowski et al., 2016).

Representativeness is one critical feature of quality inclusion, requiring no overabundance of certain groups, whether they are traditionally overrepresented or underrepresented among the participants. In open surveys, responses may highlight certain groups, such as young people, who adopt technology quickly, and people with sufficient language skills. If such a skew occurs, the responses obtained may inadequately describe the entire set of participants. Thus, not all participants will be heard equally, even if everyone has the same right to participate. Also, in workshops, the opinions of strong and loud individuals are often emphasized in the discussion. For others, daring to speak their often divergent views is not always possible due to the face-to-face nature of the workshops and fear of stigmatization (Kahila-Tani et al., 2017). Therefore, online participation may be more pleasant for quieter and minority participants than traditional means.

3 Participatory planning and design today

3.1 Regional development and participative methods

Citizens’ participation in regional development and planning has been increasing during the last decades. Participatory planning is an approach to designing vibrant, livable cities, making urban planning accessible and community-driven. It is based on the belief that blending local knowledge and expert knowledge leads to solid outcomes. (Stratigea et al., 2015; Medeiros, 2021; Panagiotopoulou, 2017). The examination of the case studies suggests that involving future inhabitants as stakeholders in the urban planning development process would lead to and require new methods of participation.

A common way to involve residents is through map-based surveys, e.g., public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS), which brings together different groups’ views, needs, and aspirations about land use in the same form as designers and other experts. Map surveys aim to develop the participation of traditionally excluded groups, for example, children, young people, and immigrants. Map surveys enable the location and visualization of experiences and opinions (Kahila & Kyttä, 2010; Brown, 2012). PPGIS methods have been used for more than 20 years in various land use planning involvement cases worldwide (Brown, 2012; McCall, 2015; Brown & Kyttä, 2018). However, the application of map surveys to rural areas is still relatively limited. Some map-based surveys in sparsely populated northern regions have been conducted (Brunet et al., 2014), but PPGIS research is scarce (Brown, 2012; Kantola et al., 2018).

3.2 Apartment buildings and participatory methods

Participatory methods in designing a new building involve consultation with future users and can also lead to collaborative design. Also, the consultative design process has been used to create housing for Indigenous communities. (E.g. MacTavish et al., 2012) This article’s review of participatory methods focuses on an existing area and buildings where users already exist. Therefore, the design of new buildings is not considered in this context.

In renovation projects, the objectives are often related to improving the technical quality of the building and eliminating problems. For example, questionnaires can be used to map indoor air problems. When it comes to functional changes to a building and the refinement of architectural quality, users play a crucial role. In recent years, the basis for decision-making consulted by users has become more widespread, especially in rental companies, but the use of participatory methods is not common. For example, De Geest and De Nys-Ketels (2019) have looked at how two slum communities react, contest, and protest against implementing a large-scale public housing project. Tenant participation has become an almost ubiquitous feature of the planning and provision of social housing in many countries. (Kruythoff, 2008; Reid & Hickman, 2002). Quite often, the participation is applied in two different contexts: tenants’ associations’ and tenant management organisations’ opinions are heard, but there is no genuine participation of the tenants. According to Hall and Hickman (2011), “there remain few examples of genuine involvement of residents in formal regeneration decision-making processes at a local level in France (especially in respect of strategic issues). There exists a ‘participation deficit’.”

4 Finnish cases and research methods

This article examines the Reshaping Living: New Structure and New Life for Old Suburbs project funded by the Finnish Ministry of the Environment. (Lähiöohjelma, 2020) The research focused on pilot suburbs designated by the cities, examining each as a whole and at the level of individual blocks and buildings. In planning renovation, attention was paid to opportunities for communal living and shared dwelling spaces to achieve more efficient use of space. As these are areas under change, consulting residents and considering their views is essential. The buildings examined in the project were typical apartment rental complexes in the suburbs.

In Finland, citizen participation has increased in developing and planning regions for the last decades (Heikka & Jylkäs, 2019; Hämäläinen, 2014; Kallio 2020; Lahtinen et al., 2014; Kuronen et al., 2012). The involvement and influence of residents in land use planning and open information are the cornerstones of the current Land Use and Building Act. Indeed, a wide range of practices and tools have been established, enabling citizens to be consulted and involved in implementing this statutory obligation in municipalities. For example, planners and officials already widely use presentations, hearings, and resident surveys. This article evaluates the adequacy of the typical means of obtaining information and involvement in an apartment building renovation project that does not include a statutory requirement for consultation and participation.

One fundamental principle of the research project emphasized resident orientation in setting goals. The project presented focused on typical participatory design practices and the creativity and development of new shared spaces in buildings. The participatory research and planning methods were resident surveys and workshops. This article does not present the outcome of resident involvement – a renovation plan – but addresses the challenges of routine resident workshop work and consultation with residents in rental housing companies with a multicultural background and who may not be committed to long-term living in the area.

The case buildings represent typical Finnish apartment buildings of the 1960 and 1970 s. The room and space arrangements of the dwellings have been well-preserved: They are still functional and structurally sound – unlike the condition and architecture of the buildings. The architecture is not very human-friendly due to, for example, the closed nature of the ground story, which only has a few tiny windows. The materials used, mainly the visible concrete surfaces, create a monotonous and industrial atmosphere in suburban environments. The buildings need renovation, at least for technical reasons. As well as improving energy efficiency, renovation provides an opportunity to enhance the comfort and accessibility of residential buildings. In the participatory part of the project, the residents’ attitudes towards community, shared premises, and new types of housing were surveyed. Resident participation also sought to engage the residents in changes to the area and buildings and find significant design ideas to positively impact their comfort and living.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Case 1 in Turku, Lauste. The buildings are typical 1970s apartment houses. (Emmi Santamäki)

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Case 2 in Oulu, Puolivälinkangas. The buildings from the 1970s are in urgent need of renovation. (Oona Hynninen)

Full size image

The study was conducted simultaneously in two cities – in apartment buildings based on rental housing. Case 1 in Turku is in a strongly multicultural area in southern Finland in Lauste suburban area, comprising two four-story rental apartment buildings built in 1976. Case 2 in Oulu is situated in northern Finland in Puolivälinkangas area with a lower tenant turnover than in Case 1, consisting of two nine-story buildings constructed in the early 1970s. In both cases, two buildings in the same courtyard were examined. At both sites, the architects were also researchers. (Hynninen, 2022; Santamäki, 2022)

5 Resident survey as a producer of information

Surveys addressed to residents are a common data collection method used in Finland to map the future change needs of rental housing companies. Surveys are conducted by property owners or the architect hired before the design is undertaken. Response rates often remain low, which may reflect residents’ suspicion of the actual impact the survey brings.

A survey’s advantage is the extensive question material in which many people can be asked numerous things. This method is fast and efficient. Queries produce many results based on numbers, which are then processed statistically. The survey’s weaknesses might be the superficiality of the information assembled, how the respondents react to the study, the success of the questions from the respondents’ perspectives, how aware they are of the topic, or whether they are familiar with the matter (Ojasalo et al., 2014).

In this project, an online survey and a hand-filled paper form were used to implement the study of two sites. The survey’s length and clarity of the layout are essential for the respondent and the data logger. Too long of a query reduces the willingness to respond. Case 1 used a four-page form, and Case 2, a two-page document, including multiple-choice and open-ended questions. The questions were considered for simplicity and ease of understanding – not asked just for the sake of certainty but drafted to be unambiguous. The questions were intended to be short in length and precise in wording, without dual meanings. Similarly, only one question was asked at a time. The questionnaire’s cover letter explained the survey’s purpose to inspire confidence and motivation. Movie tickets were drawn among the respondents. As the second case was in a multicultural area, participants could respond in English and Finnish.

5.1 Informing

Case 1

The survey focused on the residents of the target apartment buildings and others living in the vicinity of those buildings. The renovation planned for the buildings includes constructing more floors, so planning is essential for the entire area. The Facebook page announced the survey and upcoming workshop in advance. A social worker working in the suburb’s resident’s house advertised the survey and workshop connected with their events and spread the word to a large proportion of the residents through a familiar person. A private kindergarten in the area also advertised the survey and workshop. Filling in the paper survey in the suburb’s resident’s house and the kindergarten provided an opportunity for residents whose access to or ability to use the Internet was challenging. Also, the area’s real estate service delivered paper bulletins to the notice boards of the area’s apartment buildings. Due to the area’s multicultural demographics, all papers contained the necessary information in Finnish and English. The number of respondents to the resident survey grew slowly the first few weeks, which is why a paper bulletin was delivered to each apartment’s post office box.

Case 2

The resident questionnaire was distributed to each apartment on the site, of which there were 112 in the two buildings. The survey was conducted via a traditional paper survey to reach those without a computer or not fluent computer users. A significant proportion of the residents are retired.

5.2 Implementation

The survey in both cases consisted mainly of different types of multiple-choice questions and a few open-ended questions. Answering open-ended questions was not mandatory because, otherwise, many could have interrupted answering the survey. Case 1 allowed answering in Finnish or English, and the questions were written in both languages. The survey could be completed online and in paper form in Finnish and English. Case 2 was carried out only on paper and only in Finnish. The survey was returned to the property maintenance mailbox in the second building, with a response time of two weeks. In both cases, answering the survey was encouraged by drawing lots for movie tickets among all respondents.

5.3 Results and evaluation

Case 1

had 55 respondents, 6 of whom responded via a paper form and 49 through an online survey. Ten respondents started the survey but failed to respond. The results cannot be generalized to residents of the whole area due to the small number of responses. The area has a population of 3,000, meaning the response rate was less than 2%. However, the resident’s house employee considered the response rate high compared to similar surveys. Moreover, 53% of the respondents were women, and 44% were men. The rest did not wish to disclose their gender. Most of the respondents speak Finnish as their mother tongue (82%); Russian, Persian, and Kurdish were also mentioned. The age of the respondents was evenly distributed. The fewest (5%) responses came from children under 18. Most respondents were employed (40%) or retired (28%). Case 2 responses were received in 15 copies, representing a response rate of 13%.

5.4 The benefits of the survey from the perspective of participatory methods and planning

Surveys can be addressed to residents of buildings or areas. The so-called resident evenings are one example of promoting civic debate and citizen participation. Often, participants feel that discussions at open events do not lead to anything. For instance, city officials are unwilling to continue the conversation, which stops after a short event (e.g., Koskinen-Koivisto et al., 2022).

The resident survey is often mentioned as an inclusive, participatory method, though it is more of a user-driven data collection method lacking interaction between the data collector and the data provider. Thus, this survey’s emphasis was already defined from the architect’s point of view, so the open-ended questions already led in a specific direction. The results remained available to the architect, but the collected data was not returned to the residents. In Case 1, a resident employee mentioned there had been many surveys and other participatory events in the area. Still, residents have not been told how the involvement affected planning.

From the architect’s perspective, the survey was useful and confirmed their presuppositions. The results highlighted small observations used to define the design starting points. In both cases, the sample remained relatively small, and the results were dismantled using quantitative (multiple-choice) and qualitative (open-ended) methods.

6 Workshop as a planning tool

The workshop is a relatively traditional participatory method, characterized by a predetermined time and place, discussing the possible plans or themes with the participants. This method’s participatory character is built, for example, based on dialogue, argumentation, exchange of opinions, or sketching design work. In the planning phase, the workshops aim to gather information from participants about the weaknesses and strengths of the buildings or other objects’ current situations and suggestions for development. There is usually an opportunity to comment on an existing plan or proposal in draft phase workshops.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Phases of a typical workshop. (According to Äijälä 2022, based on Chambers 2002; Horelli et al., 2002; Lauttamäki 2014)

Full size image

The workshops aim to deepen understanding and are an excellent way to involve people in the different designing and planning stages. Many methods for workshops exist, including the inspiration, brainstorming, and design phases. For the workshop to be beneficial and not remain detached, its organization requires careful planning and a clearly defined goal: to tell the participants how the workshop results will be used in the development work. Before the workshop, it is worth defining what outcomes are desired and choosing the methods to be used accordingly.

Organizing a workshop requires resources for involvement, which is why careful planning is essential. During the workshop, the facilitator must be flexible in using methods intended in advance. A workshop should be simple, so the tasks are not too complicated. Making the workshop atmosphere open to feel welcoming is essential. The workshop’s schedule should be done precisely but flexible when necessary.

There are limitations to workshop activities, as noted earlier. Physical workshops can only accommodate a limited number of participants, and not all may have a voice as an individual. The temporal and local nature of the work also reduces the opportunities for even interested participants to participate. The focus of participatory design has increasingly shifted online, but this project has followed the general approach of meeting face-to-face.

6.1 Advance workshop arrangements and participation activity

The Case 1 workshop was held on a weekday evening to make most of the workforce’s attendance possible. The venue was a suburb’s resident’s house, which is central and easily accessible. The workshop was advertised as a low-threshold event, where you are free to express your opinions and offer suggestions for improving your residential area over coffee. Four residents arrived at the workshop, three of whom were female. One participant had a non-Finnish background. Most participants were middle-aged or older. A resident employee and two representatives of the owner (the city’s rental housing company) also attended.

An introductory event preceded the Case 2 workshops. A few weeks earlier, the architect/researcher attended a resident meeting in the case apartment building’s clubroom, where 17 residents, most of whom were retirees, participated. The share of women was slightly higher than that of men. The building owner’s representative, the owner’s newsletter photographer, and an editor, who interviewed the residents and the researcher, also attended. The magazine article did not appear before the residents’ workshop was organized. The pre-event allowed the architect to chat with residents and small groups. Residents already had good comments on the design themes, ten of whom attended the actual resident workshop a few weeks later.

6.2 Implementation

At the beginning of the workshops, general information was given about the research and planning project, the workshop’s background, and the purpose of the results provided by the workshop. At the events, residents’ project-related questions were answered openly. Large whiteboards were used in both workshops, with titles related to the themes under consideration. The discussion aimed to capture the ideas and opinions that emerged under the headlines. During the event, sticky notes helped everyone freely share their views without having to become the center of attention, as with oral expression. This method lowered the threshold for expressing opinions and presenting thoughts. In the Case 1 event, photographs of the area sparked discussion and views on various topics. The project related to the apartment building and the area, but the debate yielded opinions only on the latter, as none of the participants lived in the case’s apartment building. Work started slowly in the Case 2 workshop but dividing the participants into small groups accelerated the discussion. Ideas and suggestions were better obtained by asking general questions, after which more specific questions on the topics were asked. The tools used promoted and structured the lesson and left materials for the researcher to analyze the workshop’s results later.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Whiteboard working with sticky notes, Case 2. (Hynninen)

Full size image

In both workshops, the researchers guided the discussion through questions and sought to create equality by giving opportunities for the most sensitive and silent participants to speak. The conversation shifted to another topic if the discussion no longer brought new perspectives or went to issues unrelated to the workshop themes. The researchers also picked out the comments and wrote them down on the sticky notes.

6.3 Workshop from the perspective of participatory methods and planning

The workshop allowed residents to define the design’s goals, slightly changing the planning’s emphasis. However, the work did not produce any real surprises about the architects’ preconceived notions, which they had formed after getting to know the buildings based on the material and the site. The challenge in both cases was getting a vast number of residents involved in the workshop work, as the pandemic limited participation and arrangements. Residents in the participatory events were already active residents or residents with plenty of time, particularly in Case 2. In both cases, the age distribution of the participants was concentrated in the older population, and the large spectrum of the areas’ inhabitants was not represented.

The project did not involve the second phase of the workshop: presenting the draft plans to the residents at the second event – a typical procedure concerning building renovation projects. This one-phase-base brought workshop working closer to user-centered design methods than genuine participatory design. The information collected or how it will be used in planning was not returned to residents. The completed plan will be available to residents later in both cases.

7 Discussion and conclusions

Using participatory methods chosen by the designer to answer questions determined by the designer, to meet goals, again, set by the designer, may not actually be participatory despite seemingly utilising participatory methods. This showcases how no method is inherently participatory, it depends on how the methods are used. (Äijälä, 2022) The methods commonly used in Finland – the survey and the one-on-one workshop – are usually mentioned as participatory planning methods. A resident workshop is held only once during a routine design project because organizing it consumes a lot of time and human resources. In the context of this project, a resident workshop proved to be more of a means of generating information in the design’s early stages. The resident workshop is interactive, but its interactivity is limited to the meeting, not the planning. Testing the design development and exchanging information between the residents and the architect will not occur. The experience of being genuinely heard only arises when the encounter is unhurried and relevant to both parties. From the residents’ perspective, participation only becomes genuinely participatory when the participants believe they can influence the planning’s development and its outcomes. However, when using conventional means – a survey and a workshop – this experience is not generated.

At worst, residents’ involvement in developing and planning can be reduced to an empty ritual carried out by the administration or researchers, which has little effect on the outcome. In this case, participation occurs when the various parties present their involvement via their scripted roles and residents’ participation is needed more to justify the administrative process in meeting the requirements of listening to residents.

The designer always uses power. Participatory methods should consider the power relations between the architect and residents, and the need for and usefulness of the research, meaning from whose perspective the research is carried out. Community members should be involved as partners, advisors, and participants. Ownership of the resulting knowledge and its return to the community is examined, such as the knowledge concerned with indigenous research (e.g., Battiste, 2008). Still, the game rules have not often been discussed in Finland for participatory planning.

During the pandemic, many meetings were online. Although various workshops are increasingly going online, there will not necessarily be a constructive discussion at such public events. The traditional tools of the workshops are also unsuitable for such occasions, even if the debate could occur in small groups. Working online limits those unfamiliar with information technology or those without a computer. Perhaps the biggest drawback is that the atmosphere cannot be lightened at the coffee table in online events, even though personal encounters and face-to-face conversations are perceived to be necessary. Moreover, the workshop work started slowly, with everyone getting to know each other. Only then did the courage to express one’s views emerge. In Case 1, a suburb’s social worker said the workshop and survey had inspired residents: A discussion about community and communal living had been going on in later suburban events. Some residents had even begun considering, for example, the benefits of group housing and whether a shared apartment could accommodate them. At best, the value of resident participation can be broader than just a data collection event utilizing a design project.

The survey (Case 1) showed that answering online (49) was more popular than filling out a paper form (6). Fifty-nine people started responding, but ten failed to respond, which may be due to fatigue from filling out surveys, as surveys have been conducted extensively in the area under development. Another reason may be that the four-page survey was too labor-intensive. The significance of the questions could have been considered in more detail, and the survey should have been reduced to two pages.

The number of participants in the research project workshops was small, but the events still produced residents’ views on the current state of the buildings and areas. Perhaps instead of measuring the number and extent of participants in public events, considering how encounters between different actors could be supported and how the role of residents as active actors in their neighborhood could be strengthened would be more fruitful. Moreover, participatory methods should be done in a way that makes participants feel they have been heard and that the interaction among the property owner, tenants, and planners is ongoing.

Resident participation in the study provided new insight into renovation planning from a resident and community perspective, during which the importance of involving residents was strengthened. The challenge, however, is getting enough people interested in participatory activities. In most cases, residents who attend participatory events, such as workshops, may represent an active and influenced type of resident. In most cases, the broad spectrum of residents in the areas will be unrepresented. Finding the right way to get the residents involved is challenging. An ethnographic study in which the researcher is physically present for a more extended period and interacts with residents could provide a much broader overview of the people and lifestyles in the area. However, setting aside enough time to analyze the subject of projects is often undesirable and impossible.

To analyze the building or area, a participation method called “gåtur” (“a walking trip”) might be another good tool (De Laval 2014). The guided walking tour consisted of small groups of locals; observations were written down and discussed later. Walking tours could be one opportunity for a face-to-face encounter, giving the concrete experience of the strengths and development needs of the residential area. Being on-site would also provide a chance to learn more about the voluntary activities of local communities and associations. Therefore, the motivation for participation, encounters, and joint development should be reciprocal and the interaction continuous.

Participation is time-consuming, it requires financial resources and a lot of effort and commitment from both the designers and participants. Based on this AsuMut project (Äijälä, 2022) there could be three principles of practice to encourage user participation: (1) Communication. (2) Positive experiences. (3) Follow-through. Communication means informative engagement, genuine participation opportunities and the participation’s impact on the project – as well as the promotion of participatory events as low-threshold, fun, community activities. Creating a positive experience that encourages future participation, requires careful choosing and planning of purposeful participatory methods. It also requires flexibility from the designers and good social skills. Lastly, follow-through is not only about communicating to the users the input they have provided and how it will be used, but it also requires designers to present the finished or nearly finished design for feedback later in the process – showing how the input was incorporated.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Three steps to encourage participation successfully. (Saara Äijälä)

Full size image

As stated earlier, finding ways to get residents involved is challenging. This offers lots of possibilities for further research. Especially motivating users to participate more actively and tackling the limitations participatory design faces due to available resources, stand out as possible future topics to address in an architectural context, also not forgetting the development of ethical participation methods and practice for marginalised groups.