DOCSLIB.ORG

PARTICIPATORY LANDSCAPE DESIGN with URBAN MINORITY TEENS: BUILDING COLLECTIVE EFFICACY for LANDSCAPE STEWARDSHIP By

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PARTICIPATORY LANDSCAPE DESIGN with URBAN MINORITY TEENS: BUILDING COLLECTIVE EFFICACY for LANDSCAPE STEWARDSHIP By PARTICIPATORY LANDSCAPE DESIGN WITH URBAN MINORITY TEENS: BUILDING COLLECTIVE EFFICACY FOR LANDSCAPE STEWARDSHIP by M’Lis Bartlett A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Landscape Architecture) in the University of Michigan 2015 Doctoral Committee: Associate Professor MaryCarol R. Hunter, Co- Chair Professor Dorceta E. Taylor, Co-Chair Associate Professor Donald Freeman Professor Robert E. Grese © M’Lis Bartlett ______________________ All rights reserved 2015 DEDICATION For Dad 1938-2015 Who loved people and nature. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am deeply appreciative of the thoughtful support of the many people who have supported my journey on the path to completing this dissertation. In particular I am very grateful to my committee, MaryCarol Hunter, Dorceta Taylor, Bob Grese and Donald Freeman for their caring and critical guidance. It was through their support that I was able not only to complete a study of collective efficacy for landscape stewardship but I was able to do so in context of an on-the-ground project, creating a new school yard with the teens of Beecher, 9th Grade Academy. Thank you MaryCarol for the rigorous, thoughtful reflections, insights and conversations that wound around the data, the art of science, the profession of landscape architecture back again. I appreciate the push to keep going, to get it clear and to get it right. Dorceta I appreciate your keen use an environmental justice lens to approach this work - it is clear to me that environmental justice should be a part of every planning and design program. And thank you for the personal encouragement in times of discouragement and frustration. Donald, thank you for your on-going enthusiasm for the design professions and applied research. In particular I am grateful for the idea of thinking across and through. I liken this to looking at one’s data through a prism. If you look one way it’s one thing, but what if you turn it just a bit…what might you see? Bob, for your many kindnesses over the years. I deeply respect your on-going enthusiasm for including the voice of young people in design and your passion for engaging people in the care of their local environment. Finally, to Beth Diamond, who as my first mentor in this project, helped me start down this path iii with an introduction to my first community partner and enthusiastic push to “go make places.” I am indebted to a group of community members passionate about making the world a better place for teens and about helping teens make the world a better place! Thank you to Diana Copeland and Lizzy Baskerville for the offer of collaboration – this project started with you and your hopes for children in Detroit. To Leyla Sanker and Sara McDonelle, thank you for the on-going help (logistics and laughter) making this project come to fruition in Beecher. To the 9th Grade Academy students and staff. Each of you is a treasure. Thank you for your willingness to take a risk with someone you didn’t know to try a project that was bigger than we all imagined. Many thanks as well to the graduate students (Lizzy, Kevin, Katie, Nick) who volunteered to work with the students and make the school yard come to life. I am so lucky to have had the support of many friends throughout this project. To my doctoral sisters Sara Hadavi, Silvia Corderos-Sancho, Irem Dalogou and Dana Jackman – and many others, thank you for the edits, the tea, the chocolate and hugs. I look forward to our next journey. And finally, thanks to my husband Aric and my family – for loving me. Such endeavors are not possible without the love (and teasing) you have given me over the years. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... x LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... xi LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... xii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. xiii CHAPTER I .................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 Connecting practices: .............................................................................................................. 2 Research Design: Community Based Participatory Research ................................................ 4 Overview of the chapters ......................................................................................................... 7 References ............................................................................................................................. 10 CHAPTER II ................................................................................................................................. 12 The Ugliest School Yard Detroit: Environmental Education & Action through Participatory Landscape Design ......................................................................................................................... 12 Abstract: ................................................................................................................................ 12 2-1. Participatory Design and Teens ......................................................................................... 14 2-2. Ugliest School Yard, Detroit.............................................................................................. 16 2-3. Next Steps .......................................................................................................................... 18 References ............................................................................................................................. 21 CHAPTER III ............................................................................................................................... 23 Participatory landscape design with urban minority teens:A tool for building collective eficacy for landscape stewardship ............................................................................................................. 23 Abstract: ................................................................................................................................ 23 3-1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 25 Participatory landscape design for youth ............................................................................. 26 Participatory design and environmental education for local action ..................................... 29 v Collective efficacy a theoretical framework .......................................................................... 30 3-2. Methods and descriptive results ......................................................................................... 34 3-2-1. Study location ............................................................................................................. 34 3-2-2. The Healthiest School Yard Project ............................................................................ 36 3-2-3. Sample Populations: HSY participants and 9GA student body .................................. 39 3-2-4. Survey instrument ....................................................................................................... 40 Examining direct and vicarious experience .......................................................................... 40 Self and collective efficacy for landscape stewardship ......................................................... 42 3-3. Variable creation and statistical methods .......................................................................... 45 3-3-1. Collective efficacy construction through participatory design ................................... 45 Collective Efficacy for Healthiest School Yard Program (HSY) Participants: ..................... 45 Self-efficacy for Healthiest School Yard Program (HSY) Participants: ............................... 47 Exploring efficacy related to specific landscape types (HSY): .............................................. 47 Collective Efficacy for the Whole Study Population (WSP): ................................................. 47 Exploring collective efficacy construction in the Whole Study Population: ......................... 48 Exploring self-efficacy construction for the Whole School Population: ............................... 50 3-4. Results ................................................................................................................................ 51 3-4-1. Collective efficacy outcomes for HSY design program participants .......................... 51 Collective Efficacy for Healthiest School Yard Program (HSY) Participants: ..................... 51 Collective efficacy and skill building experiences with HSY participants: ........................... 52 Self-efficacy
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Dilemma of Education in Participatory Design: the Marketplace Value Vs
    Session 1725 The Dilemma of Education in Participatory Design: The Marketplace Value vs. Community Value Kun-Jung Hsu Department of Construction Technology Leader University, Taiwan. Abstract The concept of “participatory planning/design” has gradually become one of the main themes in professional design and social science. However, because behavioral patterns in space design are closely related to the values of the designers concerned, the pursuit and construction of a good place is a basic and normative proposition in the proceeding of planning and design. This paper explores the dilemma of education in participatory design and reveals the contradiction between marketplace values and community values in practice. Also, this paper utilizes the production possibility curve and the choice theory of demand side to analyze the concept, value judgment, decision-making, and constraints of planning/design behavior. Introduction The ideal of advocacy planning first proposed by Davidoff in the mid 1960’s. The professional planners and designers who support this view vow to make planning for the needs of the disadvantaged groups and persons their top priority. They jointly opposed urban redevelopment policy propelled by bulldozers, and advocated the development of participatory planning methods through democratic processes. The normative discourse proposes that public space planning and design be regarded as requiring direct public participation in the decision-making processes in formulating public space. Environment-Behavior study (E-B study) adopts problem-oriented approaches that emphasize the need for interaction between design and research [6]. Following the development of E-B Study, the normative viewpoint of participatory planning and design has gradually become one of the main themes in professional design and social science [3, 7, 8].
    [Show full text]
  • Participatory Design of Classrooms: Infrastructuring Education Reform in K-12 Personalized Learning Programs
    Journal of Learning Spaces Volume 7, Number 2. 2018 ISSN 21586195 Participatory Design of Classrooms: Infrastructuring Education Reform in K‐12 Personalized Learning Programs Julie M. Kallio University of Wisconsin ‐ Madison The redesign of the physical spaces of classrooms and schools has become a prominent feature in many K‐12, personalized learning schools, though it is often dismissed as a peripheral aspect of change. Through observations and interviews at four public schools, I examine the affordances of these new spaces and the narrative of their design. I situate these spaces‐turned‐places as pedagogical artifacts in a participatory design process to examine how educators and students create functional and meaningful learning spaces. Reframing the physical spaces in this way suggests how the spaces may be supporting the sustainability of the reform. In an ongoing inquiry into personalized learning (PL) educational reform that redesigns school systems to support reforms in urban, suburban, and rural districts, I heard student‐centered, agency‐based models of learning educators and students speak at length, often unprompted, (Rickabaugh, 2016). PL draws on progressive ideas of about the ways they had modified their classrooms and engaging students as agents in their own learning with the buildings, from knocking down walls to adding sofa chairs support of digital technologies (Patrick, Kennedy, & Powell, and lamps (Author, et al., 2015). To them, their physical 2013). Educators often use the phrase “voice and choice” as spaces held meaning toward their efforts of transform what two strategies of engaging students as agents in their teaching and learning looks like in their schools.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Justice + Landscape Architecture: a Student's Guide
    ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE a students’ guide This guide was written by three masters of landscape architecture students who wanted to learn more about how landscape architecture can promote social justice and equity through design. In 2016 we became the student representatives for the ASLA's Environmental Justice Professional Practice Network so we could better connect the important work of professionals, academics, and activists working towards environmental justice with students. This guide is a response to our own desires to educate ourselves about environmental justice and share what we learned. It is a starting-off place for students - a compendium of resources, conversations, case studies, and activities students can work though and apply to their studio projects. It is a continuously evolving project and we invite you to get in touch to give us feedback, ask questions, and give us ideas for this guide. We are: Kari Spiegelhalter Cornell University Masters of Landscape Architecture 2018 [email protected] Tess Ruswick Cornell University Masters of Landscape Architecture 2018 [email protected] Patricia Noto Rhode Island School of Design Masters of Landscape Architecture 2018 [email protected] We have a long list of people to thank who helped us seek resources, gave advice, feedback and support as this guide was written. We'd like to give a huge thank you to: The ASLA Environmental Justice Professional Practice Network for helping us get this project off the ground, especially Erin McDonald, Matt Romero, Julie Stevens,
    [Show full text]
  • A Framework for Organizing the Tools and Techniques of Participatory Design
    A Framework for Organizing the Tools and Techniques of Participatory Design Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders, Eva Brandt* and Thomas Binder* MakeTools, LLC The Danish Center For Design Research* 183 Oakland Park Ave. The Danish Design School Columbus OH 43214 Copenhagen, Denmark [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT Participatory design practices have developed The field of Participatory Design (PD) has grown rapidly significantly since the pioneering work of the 80’s over the last 20 to 30 years. For more than two decades reported in, for example, Greenbaum and Kyng (1991) non-designers have been increasingly involved in various and Schuler and Namioka (1993). Where the early work design activities through a large number of participatory was mainly conducted by researchers and was guided by design projects all over the world. The project aims in PD attempts to open up the design of ICT systems to the have developed from being mainly about ICT participation of future users, participatory design today development to today include, for instance, space design, spans across a broad spectrum of domains and makes use product development, industrial design, architecture, of a broad repertoire of tools and techniques in both service- and transformation design. As every project is commercial, community oriented and research contexts. unique, it is necessary to decide which design The tools and techniques have different origins and have approach(es), methods, tools and techniques to use in a been developed for different purposes. In the tradition of specific project. Thus many practices for how to involve Scandinavian systems design there has been a strong people in designing have been used and developed during emphasis on the cooperative aspect of participatory the years.
    [Show full text]
  • Designing for Cultural Diversity: Participatory Design, Immigrant Women and Shared Creativity
    Design Research Society DRS Digital Library DRS Biennial Conference Series DRS2010 - Design and Complexity Jul 7th, 12:00 AM Designing for Cultural Diversity: Participatory Design, Immigrant Women and Shared Creativity Naureen Mumtaz University of Alberta, Canada Follow this and additional works at: https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers Citation Mumtaz, N. (2010) Designing for Cultural Diversity: Participatory Design, Immigrant Women and Shared Creativity, in Durling, D., Bousbaci, R., Chen, L, Gauthier, P., Poldma, T., Roworth-Stokes, S. and Stolterman, E (eds.), Design and Complexity - DRS International Conference 2010, 7-9 July, Montreal, Canada. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers/drs2010/researchpapers/91 This Research Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Conference Proceedings at DRS Digital Library. It has been accepted for inclusion in DRS Biennial Conference Series by an authorized administrator of DRS Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Designing for Cultural Diversity: Participatory Design, Immigrant Women and Shared Creativity ________________________________________________________________ Naureen Mumtaz, University of Alberta, e-mail: [email protected] Abstract Immigration and multiculturalism are realities of the globalized world that has given rise to subcultures, which possess specialized knowledge and language that is not shared by the main culture. This increasing interaction among people from diverse cultures has produced a complex ethno-cultural mosaic that presents formidable challenges for visual communication designers’ as well to other designers. Complexity has always been part of human environments that comprises of mutually dependent social relations. Cultural diversity of designers and audience of messages in a design scenario brings complexity in the design research process.
    [Show full text]
  • Participatory Design (Originally Known As 'Co-Operative Design') Is an Approach to Design That Attempts to Actively Involve All Stakeholders (E.G
    Brownfields in the Classroom: Partnering with your Local University LANDCAPE ARCHITECTURE PERSPECTIVES Peter Butler Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture Davis College of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Design West Virginia University Definition and Engaged Scholarship Participatory design (originally known as 'Co-operative Design') is an approach to design that attempts to actively involve all stakeholders (e.g. employees, partners, customers, citizens, end users) in the design process to help ensure that the product designed meets their needs and is usable. The term is used in a variety of fields e.g. software design, urban design, architecture, landscape architecture, product design, sustainability, project design, planning or even medicine as a way of creating environments that are more responsive and appropriate to their inhabitants' and users' cultural, emotional, spiritual and practical needs. The key attribute of participatory design is that it is a process which allows multiple voices to be heard and involved in the design, resulting in outcomes which suit a wider range of users. history- characteristics A defined methodology and systematic learning process. Multiple perspectives, diversity. Group learning process: interaction and analysis. Context specific. Facilitating experts and stakeholders. Leading to change. history-- Measuring Success Ladder of Citizen Participation (Arnstein 1969) Citizen Control Delegated Power Partnership Placation Consultation Informing Therapy Manipulation PAST EXPERIENCES: THREE MODELS Community: Ronceverte, WV- Jacob Bennett 2012 Focus of project: To revitalize Bendix Building and create community connectivity Community: 5th Ward- Wheeling, WV. Ben Stout, Josh Smith, Eric Holly 2012 Focus of project: To revitalize waterfront and industrial district Community: Beaumont Glass Site in Morgantown, WV. Sustainable Urban Redevelopment through Interpretive Design, Brownfield Reclamation and Mixed Uses.
    [Show full text]
  • Participatory Design Who Could Participate? Why Involve Many
    Participatory Design Who could participate? “emphasizes a tradition of user participation in decisions related to computing systems that have an impact on their work-lives” • Who has a stake in the user interface design? • Who is affected by the user interface development? • sometimes referred to as cooperative design • developed in Scandanivia during the 1980’s – based on the notion of a democratic workplace • Aims: – improve the quality of the system – increase productivity and usability of the system – increase the level of user-satisfaction Why involve many stakeholders? Spectrum of Involvement • Diverse expertise • better product None Total • distributed ownership & buy-in • greater satisfaction and confidence • mutual education consultative – help all stakeholders appreciate the design tradeoffs (interview) • why not? representative compromise consensus (PD) Participatory design advantages Participatory design disadvantages • Users are excellent at reacting to suggested systems • requires a democratic workplace – designs must be concrete and visible – there is a big difference between making suggestions and making decisions – company cultures • users bring important knowledge of the work context • hard to get a good pool of end-users – knowledge may be otherwise inaccessible to the design team – expensive, reluctance …. • Different backgrounds, cultures, expertise, etc. • greater buy-in for the system - better results – users are not expert designers – developers find it easier to use existing code – speak in different languages
    [Show full text]
  • Ijass-2014-4(12)-1191-1201.Pdf
    International Journal of Asian Social Science, 2014, 4(12): 1191-1201 International Journal of Asian Social Science ISSN(e): 2224-4441/ISSN(p): 2226-5139 journal homepage: http://www.aessweb.com/journals/5007 THE RULE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN SUSTAINABLE DESIGN PROCESS 1 2† Vida Norouz Borazjani --- Mahmoud Abedi 1, 2 Department of Architecture, Faculty of Arts and Architecture, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran ABSTRACT In this article, we looked at a certain gap in the design process, namely, the question of how to participate users in the design process, analysis, synthesis and evaluation should be done. We have shown that Quality Function Deployment tool exists that deals with this question. Our paper attempts to challenge the process because of the importance of this question for the successful implementation of the design process and as a result, the design and planning for sustainability. The research question: Citizen Participation in what stage of the design process should be done? Qualitative Research Method is adopted in this paper which being supported by depth interview technique with questionnaire. The success of design clearly depends on the relationship between the design and the participation in three stages of design process. Many landscapes designed for further use to customers where as this research suggests that the introduction of participation into design can lead to a universal process without a loss of creativity or synthesis. © 2014 AESS Publications. All Rights Reserved. Keywords: Participation, Design process, Sustainability. Contribution/ Originality This paper is to propose a systematic guideline to find participant requirements on the relationship between the design and the participation in three stages of design process.
    [Show full text]
  • Co-Creation and Architecture: a Participatory Approach to Studio Pedagogy Bradley Wicks Iowa State University
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Graduate Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2018 Co-creation and architecture: a participatory approach to studio pedagogy Bradley Wicks Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd Part of the Art and Design Commons Recommended Citation Wicks, Bradley, "Co-creation and architecture: a participatory approach to studio pedagogy" (2018). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 17357. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/17357 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Co-creation and architecture: a participatory approach to studio pedagogy by Brad Wicks A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Major: Industrial Design Program of Study Committee: Tejas Dhadphale, Major Professor Verena Paepcke-Hjeltness Rob Whitehead Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2018 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................v CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1 Background ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Using Participatory Design to Build & Enhance Community Gardens
    Using Participatory Design to Build & Enhance Community Gardens ABBEY PINER, MHS PARTICIATORY DESIGNER + PERMACULTURE DESIGNER A little about me Public Health. Common Good City Farm. Community Food Projects. Urban Agriculture. NCSU Masters Horticulture/Engaged Design. St. Philips Garden. SEEDS Garden. CEFS. A little about you. How many currently run or participate in community gardens? How many are working on starting/planning for a community garden? How many have participated in an engaged design process before? What are some words or phrases to describe the process? What is participatory design? an approach Participatory Design to design attempting to actively involve all stakeholders Engaged Design (e.g. employees, partners, customers, citizens, end users) in Community Engaged Design the design process in order to help ensure the product Community Participatory Design designed meets their needs and is usable. What makes engaged design different? TRADITIONAL APPROACH PARTICIPATORY APPROACH GOAL Suits the needs and wants of a client Incorporates the interests and concerns of all affected stakeholders Designer has autonomy and ultimate decision- Stakeholder participation in the decision-making PROCESS making authority within the bounds of the process throughout to assist designers in being needs identified responsive to collective concerns and suggestions A design that is beautiful, functional, and Participants invested in the implementation and EXPECTED meets the client’s needs the future use of the re-designed space RESULTS What makes engaged design different? PARTICIPATORY APPROACH When to use engaged design? TRADITIONAL APPROACH PARTICIPATORY APPROACH RequiresGoal: Create an ability a design to hear that whatsuits thethe clientneeds and A public or communal space. needswants and of the wants.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Participatory Design to Develop a Social Robot to Measure Teen Stress
    Designing for engagement: Using participatory design to develop a social robot to measure teen stress Emma J. Rose Elin A. Björling University of Washington Tacoma University of Washington Tacoma, WA Sea!lee, WA USA USA [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT technologies [51, 75, 81], researchers and designers need to consider how to design for engagement between people and While scholars in technical communication have examined on things [5]. As such, the methods, tools and approaches of UX theoretical concerns of post humanism, less work has focused on researchers and professionals need to take into account a wider designing for engaging experiences between humans and non- variety of factors and actors to attend to in the design process human agents like robots. In this research article, we present [61]. findings from a project investigating the possibility of designing Although the SIGDOC community has focused on designing a social robot to help measure teen stress. To explore design communication across a variety of domains, little work has possibilities, we conducted a series of participatory design specifically ventured into how to design interactions with social sessions with teens to envision the design of a social robot to robots. Studying how to design the interactions between humans measures stress. The findings from the study include how teens and robots is seen as qualitatively different from the field of react to existing robots, how teens conceptualize robots that human-computer interaction and therefore has spawned the sub might live in their schools through storyboarding and group field of human-robot interaction [26]. Scholars in technical discussion, and reactions to an emerging design of a low fidelity communication have considered the impact of theoretical robot.
    [Show full text]
  • PARTICIPATORY DESIGN for PUBLIC URBAN SPACES Martha Patricia Galán Aguilar © 2015 UN Global-Compact Cities Programme Melbourne, Australia
    PARTICIPATORY DESIGN FOR PUBLIC URBAN SPACES Martha Patricia Galán Aguilar © 2015 UN Global-Compact Cities Programme Melbourne, Australia Author - Martha Patricia Galán Aguilar The results of this project can be shared, with recognition of the author and publisher. Images: All images provided by research participants. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I have dedicated a lot of effort to this project. However, it would not have been possible without the kind support and help of many individuals and organisations. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them. I am highly indebted to United Nations Global-Compact Cities Programme and especially Elizabeth Ryan for her guidance, constant supervision and providing necessary information regarding the project, as well as her support in completing the project. I would like to express my gratitude to Robbie Guevara, who help me in the beginning of this journey to shape up this project. I am grateful for meeting my great friend Sandra Moye. She introduced me to the Cities Programme and gave me ongoing support throughout this research project. ¡Muchísimas gracias! I would like to express my special gratitude and thanks to all research participants for sharing their knowledge and experiences with me: Alexandre Apsan Frediani, Belinda Tato, Emma Cohlmeyer, Esben Neander Kristensen, Gisela Méndez, Liz Ogbu, Marisol García, Mike Lydon, Nerkis Kural and Susan Lengyel. My special thanks to my love Daniel for his unconditional support. I dedicate this project to my beloved sons Yolotl Ochieng and Tanok Onyango. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The idea for this project arose out of Martha Patricia Galán Aguilar’s previous experience as an urban designer in various projects in Mexico.
    [Show full text]