Ramon Chaves, Jacira Saavedra Farias, Ana Clara Meirelles de Miranda, Vera Tângari, Ricardo Lopes Correia, Maria Dalila Rufino de Araújo, Maria Lis Paula de Moraes dos Santos, Jano de Souza
pp.  207 – 235, download
(https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-065-007)

Abstract

The built environment significantly shapes perceptions and behaviors in public spaces, including university campuses. However, institutional fragmentation and limited participatory planning often create gaps between research and practical application. This article introduces a Participatory Model for Urban Design on University Campuses, which employs a Map-Based Approach emphasizing collaborative interactions with physical maps during in-person workshops. Tested at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), the model inspired a participatory approach that engaged participants, leveraged collective intelligence and generated new perspectives for campus planning. By integrating maps with design thinking, this study connects theoretical concepts and practical challenges, synthesizing expertise from a multidisciplinary team to address spatial complexities dynamically. Beyond presenting the model, the article provides a replicable framework for participatory processes and advances research in collective intelligence and mapping activities. These findings offer valuable guidance for planners, architects, administrators, and researchers seeking to implement inclusive and impactful urban design practices.

Keywords: collective intelligence, participatory design, design thinking, urban planning, urban design, urban care.

References

1. Löw M. O spatial turn: para uma sociologia do espaço. Tempo social [Internet]. Nov;25(2):17–34. (2013) https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-20702013000200002
2. Kenney, G.S.: Mission and place: Strengthening learning and community through campus design. Praeger, Westport (2005). ISBN: 0275981231
3. Strange, C.C., Banning, J.H.: Designing for learning: Creating campus environments for student success (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2015) ISBN: 987-1-118-82347-7
4. Hajrasouliha, A.H.: Campus score: Measuring university campus qualities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 158, pp. 166–176 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.007
5. Soares, I., Van Quoc, T.N., Yamu, C., Weitkamp, G.: Socio-spatial aspects of creativity and their role in the planning and design of university campuses’ public spaces: A practitioners’ perspective. Data & Policy, 4, e35 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2022.27
6. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ): Fatos e números. Acesso à informação, Rio de Janeiro (2022). https://ufrj.br/acesso-a-informacao/institucional/fatos-e-numeros/
7. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ): Caderno de Diretrizes do Plano Diretor 2030 da UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro (2023). https://ufrj.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=de5785724e4f4ee59c1159bd568d10ac
8. Miranda, ACM., Farias, J., Souza, MIO. Plano Diretor 2030 da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro: Registro e avaliação do processo e do produto. Paper presented at ENANPUR 2023, Belém, Brazil. In [Proceedings of ENANPUR 2023] (Session 07: Socio-technology for urban and regional planning (2023).
9. Andersen, K., Balbontín, S. A Walking Methodology as the Participatory Tool for a University Master Plan Design. In: Piga, B.E.A., Siret, D., Thibaud, JP. (eds) Experiential Walks for Urban Design. Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering . Springer, Cham. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76694-8_17
10.Özvan, H. Participatory Approach On Campus Vegetative Landscape Design: A Case Study In Van, Turkey (2020).
11. Trinity Gomez, Victoria Derr, Landscapes as living laboratories for sustainable campus planning and stewardship: A scoping review of approaches and practices, Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 216, (2021) 104259, ISSN 0169-2046, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104259
12. Hajrasouliha, A.H. Master-planning the American campus: goals, actions, and design strategies. Urban Des Int 22, 363–381 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-017-0044-x
13. Rittel, H., “The State of the Art in Design Methods.” Design Research and Methods (Design Methods and Theories) 7(2): 143-147. (1973a)
14. Rittel, H. and M. Webber, “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy Sciences 4:155-169. (1973b) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
15. Alexander, C.: The Oregon experiment (Vol. 3). Oxford University Press, New York (1975)
16. Sanoff, H.: Visual research methods in design. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1991) https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315541822
17. Santos, C.N.F.: A cidade como um jogo de cartas. Niterói: EDUFF; São Paulo: Projeto Editores (1988) ISBN-10: 8571650012
18. Azevedo, G. Diálogos entre Arquitetura, Cidade e Infância: territórios educativos em ação. Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ/FAU/PROARQ, 327 p.: il., 16 x 23cm. (Coleção PROARQ) (2019) ISBN: 978-85-88341-82-1 | 978-65-87833-05-7
19. Heinrich, A.J., Marguin, S., Million, A., Stollmann, J. (Eds.): Handbook of qualitative and visual methods in spatial research. Transcript Verlag, Bielefeld (2024). https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839467343
20. Chatzidakis, A., Hakim, J., Littler, J., Rottenberg, C., Segal, L.: The care manifesto: The politics of interdependence. Verso, London (2020). ISBN-13:978-83976-097-6
21. Gabauer, A., Knierbein, S., Cohen, N. (Eds.): Care and the city: Encounters with urban studies. Routledge, London (2022). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003031536
22. Lévy, P.: Collective intelligence: Mankind’s emerging world in cyberspace. Plenum Trade, New York (1997). ISBN: 0306456354
23. Brabham, D.C.: Crowdsourcing the public participation process for planning projects. Planning Theory, 8(3), pp. 242–262 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952091048
24. Suran, S., Pattanaik, V., & Draheim, D. Frameworks for collective intelligence: A systematic literature review. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 53(1), 1-36.. (2020) https://doi.org/10.1145/3368986
25. Masoodian, M., Luz, S.: Map-based Interfaces and Interactions. In: Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI ’22). ACM, New York, Article 88, pp. 1–4 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3531073.3535258
26. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L., Xu, X.: Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), pp. 157–178 (2012). https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412
27. Maricato, E. Erradicar o analfabetismo urbanistico. Revista da FASE. (2002). Available in http://www.labhab.fau.usp.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/maricato_analfabetismourbano.pdf>.
28. Pantić, M., Cilliers, J., Cimadomo, G., Montaño, F., Olufemi, O., Torres Mallma, S., van den Berg, J.: Challenges and Opportunities for Public Participation in Urban and Regional Planning during the COVID-19 Pandemic,Lessons Learned for the Future. Land, 10(12), 1379 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/land10121379
29. Steen, K., van Bueren, E.: The defining characteristics of urban living labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(7), pp. 21–33 (2017) http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1088
30. Mahmoud, I., Morello, E.: Co-creation pathway for urban nature-based solutions: Testing a shared governance framework in three cities and nine action labs in Europe. In: Mohammed, E.Y., Al, A.A. (eds.) (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57764-3_17
31. Correia, R.: O ecomapa na prática terapêutica ocupacional: uma ferramenta para o mapeamento das percepções sobre a participação nas redes sociais de suporte. Revista Interinstitucional Brasileira de Terapia Ocupacional, 1(1), pp. 67–87 (2017). https://doi.org/10.47222/2526-3544.rbto4263
32. Tangari, V., Azevedo, G., Lamounier, A., Rego, A.. Mapping Rio de Janeiro Through the Eyes of Children. In: Rubbo, A., Du, J., Thomsen, M.R., Tamke, M. (eds) Design for Resilient Communities. UIA 2023. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Springer, Cham. (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36640-6_60
33. Chaves, R., Motta, C., Correia, A., Paredes, H., Caetano, B., De Souza, J. M., & Schneider, D. Crowd and urban storytelling: Evaluating a collective intelligence model to support discussions about the city. In 2022 IEEE 25th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD) (pp. 1473-1479). IEEE. (2022) doi: 10.1109/CSCWD54268.2022.9776217

back to Table of Contents