Simulation and Citizen Participation

Theory, Research, and Practice
  • Roderick J. Lawrence


Citizen participation in the planning and construction of new building environments and the renovation of existing habitats has been the focus of much commentary and research during the last two decades. Initially, it was principally in the context of proposals for new community or private buildings and services that citizen participation received considerable attention (e.g., Hatch, 1984). However, during the 1970s there was a substantial shift toward the upgrading the reuse of extant urban and suburban environments and these settings increasingly became the locus of citizen participation (e.g., Woolley, 1985). Despite obvious differences between these two contexts for citizen participation, environmental simulation techniques have been used in both situations as vehicles to enhance interpersonal communication during the planning and design processes. The application of environmental modeling techniques to participatory planning and design has become increasingly common in several European countries, yet remains virtually untried in Asia, Australasia, and North America. This chapter begins with an overview of the ongoing debate on environmental simulation and citizen participation. It then provides a brief account of the design and applications of six European facilities. Finally, a discussion of future directions for this field of inquiry will be presented.


Interpersonal Communication Housing Association Simulation Laboratory Citizen Participation User Participation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Appleyard, D. (1977). Understanding professional media: Issues, theory and a research agenda. In I. Altman & J. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research Vol. 2, pp. 43–88. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bentz, B. 1981. Transition: User participation in the design of housing. Open House, 6(2), 2.Google Scholar
  3. Bentz, B. (1988). Active user participation in the housing process. In D. Canter, M Krampen, & D. Stea (Eds.), New directions in environmental participation pp. 68–87. UK: Gower, Aldershot.Google Scholar
  4. Canter, D., Krampen, M., & Stea, D. (Eds.). (1988). New directions in environmental participation. UK: Gower, Aldershot.Google Scholar
  5. Castells, M. (1983). The city and the grassroots: A cross-cultural theory of urban social movements. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  6. Churchman, A. (1987). Can resident participation in neighborhood rehabilitation programs succeed? In I. Altman & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Neighborhood and community environments: Human behavior and environment, advances in theory and research (Vol. 9, pp. 113–162). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cowan, H. (1978). Science and building. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Cuff, D. (1980). Design by drawing: A process of image creation and negotiation. In R. Stough & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Optimizing environments: Research, practice and policy (pp. 145–159). Proceedings of the 11th Environmental Research Association Conference. Washington, DC: EDRA.Google Scholar
  9. Eisemon, T. (1975). Simulations and requirements for citizen participation in public housing: The Truax technique. Environment and Behavior, 7(1), 99–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hardie, G. (1988). Community participation based on three-dimensional simulation models. Design Studies, 9(1), 56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hatch, R. (Ed.). (1984). The scope of social architecture. New York: van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  12. Kaplan, S. (1977). Participation in the design process: A cognitive approach. In D. Stokols (Ed.), Perspectives on environment and behavior: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 221–233). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Langton, S. (1978). Citizen participation in America: Current reflections on the state of the art. In S. Langton (Ed.), Citizen participation in America (pp. 1–12). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  14. Lawrence, R. (1982). Trends in architectural design methods: The “liability” of public participation. Design Studies, 3(2), 97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lawrence, R. (1987). Housing, dwellings and homes: Design theory research and practice. (Especially chapter 7.) Chichester, UK: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Lawrence, R. (1988). Environmental modelling for house planning. In D. Canter, M. Krampen, & D. Stea (Eds.), New directions in environmental participation (pp. 88–100). UK: Gower, Aldershot.Google Scholar
  17. Mason, J. (1988). Modelling as participation in Botswana. In D. Canter, M. Krampen, & D. Stea (Eds.), New directions in environmental participation (pp. 101–117). UK: Gower, Aldershot.Google Scholar
  18. Markus, T., Whyman, P., Morgan, J. et al. (1972). Building performance. London: Applied Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. McKechnie, G. (1977). Simulation techniques in environmental psychology. In D. Stokols (Ed.), Perspectives on environment and behavior: Theory research and applications (pp. 169–189). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pyatok, M., & Weber, H. (1978). Participation in residential design. In H. Sanoff (Ed.), Designing with community participation (pp. 173–205). Stoudsberg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.Google Scholar
  21. Raser, J. (1969). Simulation and society. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  22. Sadalla, E., & Oxley, D. 1984. The perception of room size: The rectangular illusion. Environment and Behavior, 16(3), 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Seaton, R., & Collins, J. (1972). Validity and reliability of ratings of simulated buildings. In W. Mitchell (Ed.), Environmental design: Research and practice. Proceedings of the 3rd Environmental Design Research Association Conference. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  24. Susskind, L., & Elliott, M. (Eds.). (1983). Paternalism, conflict and co-production. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  25. Stea, D. (1988). Participation, planning and design in intercultural and international practice. In D. Canter, M. Krampen, & D. Stea (Eds.), New directions in environmental participation (pp. 50–67). UK: Gower, Aldershot.Google Scholar
  26. Wandersman, A. (1979). User participation in planning environments: A Conceptual framework. Environment and Behavior, 22(4), 465–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wandersman, A. (1984). Citizen participation. In K. Heller, R. Price, S. Reinharz, S. Riger, & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Psychology and community change: Challenges of the future (2d ed., pp. 337–379). Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
  28. Woolley, T. (1985). Community Architecture: An assessment of the case for user participation in design. In S. Klein, R. Wener, & S. Lehman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Environmental Design Research Association Conference (pp. 150–156). Washington, DC: EDRA.Google Scholar
  29. Woolley, T. (1987). 1:1 and face to face. Architects’ Journal, 185, 29th April, pp. 22–23.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roderick J. Lawrence
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Human Ecology and Environmental SciencesUniversity of GenevaGeneva 4Switzerland

Personalised recommendations