Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Shifting Paradigms

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Design Charrette

Abstract

Apart from news articles and popular publications, design charrettes are not commonly found in academic literature. However, planning for the longer term, without calling it design charrettes, has been characterised. Aspects that are forming the basis for good design charrettes, such as ‘creating a hospitable climate’, ‘include key decision makers and outsiders’, ‘look far ahead’, ‘begin by looking at the past (and present)’, ‘conduct scenario work in groups’, and ‘continue a strategic conversation permanently’, form the key elements of planning for the future. The question of bringing the long term closer to present and, similarly, the global closer to the local, is essential when planning for a sustainable future. ‘Out there’, many people in communities have inventive and intelligent ideas about a sustainable environment, they drive change in the places they know best and meaningful participation helps them to better be able to deal with extreme (climate) events, reducing reliance upon external intervention. The way these kinds of abstract futures can be discussed in a way that they resemble to people living in the present is to organize methods for collaborative design and decision-making. Mutual exchange between stakeholders and decision-makers is organized in a participative model, in which leaders, team members, stakeholders and advisors and champions from academic, governmental, civic and private backgrounds are brought together. The design charrette is a tool that makes an excellent fit for collaborative cooperation for long term future planning. In many ways the collaborative approach of design charrettes is a pivot point in a transition in spatial development processes. Without becoming completely autonomous processes, the design charrettes shape more space for bottom up collaborative processes, in which stakeholders and participants determine, more than before, the agenda and process of the proceedings. This shift in paradigms can be distinguished in five fields of theory building and thinking: Problem framing, Spatial Planning, Stakeholder Engagement, Mapping and Workshop Tools. For each of these fields the current discourse as well as the shift to design charrette practice will be interpreted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Climate proof is ill defined in literature. One of the few definitions reads as follows: “climate proofing is the modification of existing and future projects so that they are resilient to impacts from climate change and/or do not contribute to increased vulnerability of the projects goals” (Klein et al. 2007).

References

  • AccountAbility. (2011). AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard 2011 (Final exposure draft). http://www.accountability.org/images/content/5/4/542/AA1000SES%202010%20PRINT.pdf. Accessed 29 Dec 2012.

  • AdfoMovere. (2007, Juni 13). Ontwikkeling Landschap & Natuur II, Provincie Groningen. Groningen: AdfoMovere/Enervarium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alcorn, J. B. (2000). Keys to unleash mapping’s good magic. PLA Notes, 39, 10–13, http://www.iied.org/NR/agbioliv/pla_notes/documents/plan_03902.pdf

  • Allmendinger, P. (2001). Planning in postmodern times. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allmendinger, P. (2002a). Towards a post-positivist typology of planning theory. Planning Theory, 1(1), 77–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allmendinger, P. (2002b). Planning theory. New York: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amin, A. (2004). An institutionalist perspective on regional economic development. In T. J. Barnes, J. Peck, E. Sheppard, & A. Tickell (Eds.), Reading in economic geography. Blackwell: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, A., Fiebe, J., Johnson, E., & Sabia, T. (2010). Optimism and a thousand charrettes. National Civic Review, 99(3), 7–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banfield, E. C. (1973). Ends and means in planning. In A. Faludi (Ed.), A reader in planning theory (Urban and regional planning series, Vol. 5). Oxford/New York/Toronto/Sydney/Paris/Frankfurt: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batts, V. (2012). Participatory 3-D modeling for climate change adaptation in India: Experience, guiding principles, future opportunities. Pune: WOTR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauregard, R. (1996). Between modernity and post-modernity: The ambiguous position of US planning. In S. Campbell & S. Fainstein (Eds.), Readings in planning theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity (M. Ritter, Trans.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1994). The reinvention of politics. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order (pp. 1–55). Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U., Bonss, W., & Lau, C. (2003). The theory of reflexive modernization: Problematic, hypotheses and research programme. Theory, Culture & Society, 20, 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beierle, T., & Cayford, J. (2002). Democracy in practice. Public participation in environmental decisions. Washington, DC: Resource for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boelens, L. (2010). Theorizing practice and practising theory: Outlines for an actor-relational – Approach in planning. Planning Theory, 9(1), 28–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brent Gallupe, R., Dennis, A. R., Cooper, W. H., Valacich, J. S., Bastianutti, L. M., & Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. (1992). Electronic brainstorming and group size. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 350–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, H., Vergragt, P., Green, K., & Berchicicci, L. (2003). Learning for sustainability transition through bounded social-technical experiments in personal mobility. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 15, 291–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Dreborg, K. H., Engström, R., & Henriksson, G. (2003). Possibilities for long-term changes of city life: Experiences of back-casting with stakeholders (Swedish National Report-fms-report 178). Stockholm: Forskniingsgruppen för miljöstrategiska studier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cates, C. (1979). Beyond muddling: Creativity. Public Administration Review, 39(6), 527–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CES. (2012). Many publics: Participation, inventiveness and change. Melbourne: Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability, Victoria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. (1994). Paradigm shifts and the practice of participatory research and development. In N. Nelson & S. Wright (Eds.), Power and participatory development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. (2006). Participatory mapping and geographic information systems: Whose map? Who is empowered and who disempowered? Who wins and who loses? EJISDC, 25(2), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative inquiry, a positive revolution in change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. (2008). Appreciative inquiry handbook, for leaders of change (2nd ed.). San Francisco/Brunswick: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc./Crown Custom Publishing, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, J. M., & Keller, C. P. (2005). An analytical framework to examine empowerment associated with participatory geographic information systems (PGIS). Cartographica, 40(4), 91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davy, B. (2008). Plan it without a condom! Planning Theory, 7(3), 301–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Boer, J., Wardekker, J. A., & Van der Sluijs, J. P. (2010). Frame-based guide to situated decision-making on climate change. Global Environmental Change, 20(3), 502–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bono, E. (1983). Lateral thinking. Middlesex: Pelican Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Roo, G., & Porter, G. (2007). Fuzzy planning: The role of actors in a fuzzy governance environment. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Connolly, T., & Wynne, B. E. (1996). Process structuring in electronic brainstorming. Information Systems Research, 7(2), 268–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Immigration and Citizenship. (2008). Stakeholder engagement, practitioner handbook. Belconnen: Department of Immigration and Citizenship, National Communications Branch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreborg, K. H. (1996). Essence of back-casting. Futures, 28(9), 813–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dror, Y. (1964). Muddling through-‘Science’ or Inertia? Public Administration Review, 24, 154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dror, Y. (1973). The planning process: A facet design. In A. Faludi (Ed.), A reader in planning theory (Urban and regional planning series, Vol. 5). Oxford/New York/Toronto/Sydney/Paris/Frankfurt: Pergamon Press (reprinted, original publication in: International Review of Administrative Sciences 29(1), 46–58).

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmore, R. (1980). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly, 94, 601–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, J. (1993). A poststructuralist analysis of the legal research process. Law Library Journal, 85, 391–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feick, R., & Hall, B. (2001). Balancing consensus and conflict with a GIS-based multi-participant, multi-criteria decision support toll. GeoJournal, 53, 391–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J., Suryanata, K., & Hershock, P. (2005). Mapping communities, ethics values, practice. Honolulu: East-West Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J., Suryanata, K., Hershock, P., & Pramono, A. H. (2006). Mapping power: Ironic effects of spatial information technology. Participatory Learning and Action, 54, 98–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, J., Dowd, A.-M., Mason, C., & Ashworth, P. (2009). A framework for stakeholder engagement on climate adaptation (CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship working paper no. 3). http://www.csiro.au/resources/CAF-working-papers.html

  • Girardet, H., & Mendonça, M. (2009). A renewable world: Energy, ecology, equality. Foxhole/Darlington/Totnes/Devon: Green Books Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, C. (2006). Working towards more effective and sustainable Brownfield revitalisation policies. Stakeholder engagement – A toolkit. Brussels: Interreg IIIC/REVIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grin, J., van de Graaf, H., & Hoppe, R. (1997). Technology assessment through interaction. The Hague: Rathenau Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunder, M. (2011). Fake it until you make it, and then…. Planning Theory, 10(3), 201–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunder, M., & Hillier, J. (2009). Planning, in ten words or less. London: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1993). Justification and application: Remarks on discourse ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. London: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (2006). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (2009). In search of the “strategic” in spatial strategy making. Planning Theory and Practice, 10(4), 439–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillier, J. (2003). Agon’ising over consensus: Why Habermasian ideals cannot be ‘real’. Planning Theory, 2(1), 37–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillier, J. (2007). Stretching beyond the horizon. A multiplanar theory of spatial planning and governance. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillier, J., & Cao, K. (2011). Enabling. Chinese strategic spatial planners to paint green dragons. Planning Theory, 10(4), 366–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IFAD. (2009). Good practices in participatory mapping. Rome: IFAD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Innes, J. (2004). Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics. Planning Theory, 3(1), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innes, J., & Booher, D. (1999, Autumn). Consensus building and complex adaptive systems – A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. APA Journal, 65(4), 412–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Innes, J., & Booher, D. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory, 5(4), 419–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jencks, C. (1987). Post-modernism, The new classicism in art and architecture. London: Academy Editions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, R. J. T., Eriksen, S. E. H., Naess, L. O., Hammill, A., Tanner, T. M., Robledo, C., et al. (2007). Portfolio screening to support the mainstreaming of adaptation to climate change into development assistance. Climatic Change, 84, 23–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kooistra, J. (1988). Denken is bedacht. Culemborg: Giordano Bruno.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyem, P. A. K. (2004). Of intractable conflicts and participatory GIS applications: The search for consensus amidst competing claims and institutional demands. Annals of the Association of the American Geographer, 94(1), 37–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyem, P. A. (2006). Finding common ground in land use conflicts using PGIS: Lessons from Ghana. Participatory Learning and Action, 54, 36–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of "muddling through". Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lissandrello, E., & Grin, J. (2011). Reflexive planning as design and work: Lessons from the port of Amsterdam. Planning Theory and Practice, 12(2), 223–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombardi, M. (1994). L’evoluzione del distretto industriale come sistema informativo: alcuni spunti di riflessione. L’Industria, 15(3), 523–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCall, M. K. (2003). Seeking good governance in participatory-GIS: A review of processes and governance dimensions in applying GIS to participatory spatial planning. Habitat International, 27, 549–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCall, M. K. (2004, May 10–12). Can participatory-GIS strengthen local-level spatial planning? Suggestions for better practice. In Proceedings GISDECO 2004. Skudai, Johor.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCall, M. (2006). Precision for whom? Mapping ambiguity and certainty in (participatory) GIS. Participatory Learning and Action, 54, 114–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLoughlin, B. (1969). Urban and regional planning: A systems approach. London: Faber & Faber.

    Google Scholar 

  • MCMPR. (2005). Principles for engagement with communities and stakeholders. Canberra: Ministerial Council on Mineral and Petroleum Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miraftab, F. (2009). Insurgent planning: Situating radical planning in the global south. Planning Theory, 8(1), 32–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C. (1993). The return of the political (2005 ed.). London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Social Research, 66(3), 745–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, S. (2011). Post-anarchism and space: Revolutionary fantasies and autonomous zones. Planning Theory, 10(4), 344–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obermeyer, N. J. (1998). The evolution of public participation GIS. Cartography & GIS, 25(2), 65–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving (3rd revised ed.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patiño, L., & Gauthier, D. A. (2009). Integrating local perspectives into climate change decision making in rural areas of the Canadian prairies. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 1(2), 179–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauhus, P. B., Dzindolet, M. T., Poletes, G., & Mabel Camacho, L. (1993). Perception of performance in group brainstorming: The illusion of group productivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(1), 78–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinsonneault, A., Barki, H., Brent Gallupe, R., & Hoppen, N. (1999). Electronic brainstorming: The illusion of productivity. Information Systems Research, 10(2), 110–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pløger, J. (2004). Strife: Urban planning and agonism. Planning Theory, 3(1), 71–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quan, J., Oudwater, N., Pender, J., & Martin, A. (2001). GIS and participatory approaches in natural resources research. Socio-economic methodologies for natural resources research. Best practice guidelines. Chatham: Natural Resources Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quist, J., & Vergragt, P. (2006). Past and future of back-casting: The shift to stakeholder participation and a proposal for a methodological framework. Futures, 38, 1027–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rambaldi, G. (2005). Who owns the legend? Journal of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association, 17(1), 5–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rambaldi, G. (2010). Participatory 3-dimensional modelling: Guiding principles and applications (2010 ed.). Wageningen: CTA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rambaldi, G., & Callosa-Tarr, J. (2000). Manual on participatory modeling for natural resource management. Essentials of protected area management in the Philippines (Vol. 7). Los Banos: NIPAP, PAWB-DENR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rambaldi, G., & Callosa-Tarr, J. (2002). Participatory 3-dimensional modelling: Guiding principles and applications. Los Baños: ARCBC. Available online: www.iapad.org/p3dm_guiding_principles.htm

  • Rambaldi, G., Kyem, A. P. K., Mbile, P., McCall, M., & Weiner, D. (2005, September 7–10). Participatory spatial information management and communication in developing countries. Paper presented at the Mapping for Change International Conference (PGIS’05), Nairobi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rambaldi, G., Kyem, A. P. K., McCall, M., & Weiner, D. (2006). Participatory spatial information management and communication in developing countries. EJISDC, 25(1), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. (1982). Energy back-casting: A proposed method of policy analysis. Energy Policy, 10, 233–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. (1990). Futures under glass: A recipe for people who hate to predict. Futures, 22(8), 820–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roggema, R., Hoogeveen, H., & Sanders, J. (2008). Probeer het eens wél zo gek te bedenken. Rapportage klimaatbestendigheid van de watervoorziening in Groningen. Hotspot Klimaatbestendig Groningen. Groningen: Waterbedrijf Groningen, Provincie Groningen en Klimaat voor Ruimte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rundstrom, R. A. (1995). GIS, indigenous peoples and epistemological diversity. Cartography & GIS, 22(1), 45–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabel, C. F. (1994). Learning by monitoring: The institutions of economic development. In N. Smelser & R. Swedberg (Eds.), Handbook of economic sociology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlossberg, M., & Shufford, E. (2005). Delineating “Public” and “Participatory” in GIS. URISA Journal, 56(2), 69–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoot Uiterkamp, T., van Dam, F., Noorman, K.-J., & Roggema, R. (2005). The Northern Netherlands: Scanning the future. In: Van Dam, F., & Noorman, K.-J. (Eds.), Grounds for change: Bridging energy planning and spatial design strategies. Charette Report. Groningen: Grounds for Change/IGU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, P. (1991). The art of the long view: Planning for the future in an uncertain world. New York: Currency Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sedogo, L. G., & Groten, S. M. E. (2002). Integration of local participatory and regional planning: A GIS data aggregation procedure. GeoJournal, 56(2), 69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, R. (2011). Towards a new model commune. Lenin’s tomb blog: http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/03/towards-new-model-commune.html. Accessed 8 Nov 2011.

  • Srivastva, S., & Cooperrider, D. L. (Eds.). (1999). Appreciative management and leadership: The power of positive thought and action in organisation (Rev. ed.). Euclid: Lakeshore Communications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steen, P., & Åkerman, J. (1994). Syntes av studier over omstallning av energi- och transportsystemen i Sverige. In: SOU 1994: 138 (report from the Swedish Governmental Committee on Climate).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, S. E., & Kemp, S. P. (2006). Integrating social science and design inquiry through interdisciplinary design charrettes: An approach to participatory community problem solving. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki, H., Dastur, A., Moffatt, S., & Yabuki, N. (2009). Eco 2 cities, ecological cities as economic cities. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C., & Block, C. H. (1958). Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3(1), 23–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. D. (2003). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New Brunswick: Transaction Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Berkel, D. B., & Verburg, P. H. (2012). Combining exploratory scenarios and participatory backcasting: Using an agent-based model in participatory policy design for a multi-functional landscape. Landscape Ecology, 27, 641–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dam, F., & Noorman, K.-J. (Eds.). (2005). Grounds for change: Bridging energy planning and spatial design strategies (Charette report). Groningen: Grounds for Change/IGU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Kerkhof, M., Hisschemöller, M., & Spanjersberg, M. (2002). Shaping diversity in participatory foresight studies, experiences with interactive back-casting in a stakeholder dialogue on long-term climate policy in the Netherlands. Greener Management International, 37(1), 95–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Kerkhof, M., Stam, T., Aerts, J., van ‘t Klooster, S., & Walraven, A. (2007). Een Back-casting analyse van een klimaatbestendig en waterveilig Nederland. Werkdocument van het project Aandacht voor Veiligheid (AvV). Instituut voor Milieuvraagstukken, W-07/20, 40 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van ‘t Klooster, S., Pauw, P., & Roggema, R. (2008). Back-casting analyse van een klimaatbestendig Groningen. Groningen: Provincie Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, S. (2004). The utopian potential of GIS. Cartographica, 39(1), 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, D., Harries, T., & Craig, W. (2001, December 6–8). Community participation and geographic information systems. Paper presented at the ESF-NSF workshop on access to geographic information and participatory approaches using geographic information. Spoleto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wierdsma, A. (1999). Co‐Creatie van verandering. Delft: Uitgeverij Eburon.

    Google Scholar 

Website

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Landscape Architecture, Van Hall Larenstein, Wageningen University, 9001, 6880 GB, Velp, The Netherlands

    Rob Roggema

  2. The Swinburne Institute for Social Research, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia

    Rob Roggema

Authors
  1. Rob Roggema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rob Roggema .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Van Hall Larenstein, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, and Swinburne University of Technology, The Swinburne Institute for Social Research, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia

    Rob Roggema

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Roggema, R. (2014). Shifting Paradigms. In: Roggema, R. (eds) The Design Charrette. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7031-7_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation