Connecting citizens through participatory design activities: Lessons from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract Construction of affordable housing in Malaysia has been one of the national objectives set by its government, ensuring low-income families have access to adequate housing. This paper discusses the perceptions and the needs of residents for the development of single-family housing units for low-income families in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia based on the outcomes from participatory design activities in the city. As part of these activities, a series of six focus groups and participatory design workshops were conducted in Kuala Lumpur. The findings from these interactive sessions are to be used in the development of proposals for new housing in the city built for low-income families, advocating for consideration of the views of the residents in the design process.


Introduction
Citizen participation in architecture and design in recent years has been a prominent practice (Gordon and Jessica 2014;Andersen et al. 2015;Luck 2018). Extending across different disciplines, complex participatory strategies emerge in different scales, linking specific projects, environments, cultural perceptions and lifestyles of users into the development of new proposals and scenarios (Crewe 2001;Ehn 2008;Sharmin and Khalid 2022). At urban scale, participation strategies can impact development of cities and neighbourhood transformation. Frameworks that sustain such activities are to be ensured at different levels, involving different entities, organisations and groups in the development process (Galimberti 2022). In participatory design activities in cities, citizen participation is to be considered as a decision-forming collaborative process (Fagence 1977).
The idea of involving the people affected by a design decision into the design process, so they can have the opportunity to influence it, has been a primary concern of any participatory design (Schuler and Namioka 1993). While there is no single definition of the term participatory design, Sanoff (2007) advocates that through participatory design there is 1) collaboration among participants with diverse backgrounds, 2) the users prefer to spend time in their environment, rather than laboratories and 3) group participation in decision-making is important for individual and group empowerment. Participatory design also means building a sense of community amongst participants, and in the process acting as a stabilizing force, participants are treated as active and involved (Sanoff 2011). Participatory design can also be described as a collective intelligence, resulting from a group interaction where the outcome is more powerful than the sum of its parts (Fischer et al. 2005;Atlee 2014). Direct involvement of users that collaborate and form a community in the decision-making process can also contribute to the creation of knowledge, support construction of networks and reflect on the design as a social process (Forester 1999;Luck 2003).
Participatory design activities in architecture benefit the design process and the integration of social, economic, environmental and cultural challenges can contribute to a good design practice (Rodgers, Marques, and McIntosh 2020). The radical shift towards participation as an open-ended design process in which the designer is also seen as a collaborator and facilitator, introduces important reflections on the way design is conceived (Ehn 2008;Manzini and Rizzo 2011). Furthermore, participation is considered as a way to enhance the design and the participants in the process are seen as active actors and codesigners that bring local knowledge, experiences, ideas and skills in the projects. The process of participatory design is also seen as a key factor for strengthening governance and civil society, impacting the decision-making and acting as a proactive mechanism that triggers new actions and events with and for the participants (Sanoff 2010;Manzini and Rizzo 2011).
Engaging citizens in the design process can also contribute to the development of their civic responsibility and inform reflective judgements (Till 2005;Sanoff 2011). Guiding principles of participatory design include equalising power relations and situation-based actions, but also empowerment and development of a sense of community amongst participants and expressing their needs and visions through mutual learning (Greenbaum and Loi 2012). Studies on participatory design also highlight the benefits of the partnership between communities and organisations also with professionals with different backgrounds (Sanoff 2011;Ravina, Shih Rowell, and Medvegy 2018).
Recognising an absence of rich literature about participatory design activities in Malaysia and the complexity of design of housing, we initiate this research. As part of this research, participatory design workshops were carried out in Kuala Lumpur, demonstrating how such activities can aid the design and development of housing for low-income communities in the city. We conduct this inquiry in Kuala Lumpur at two levels, first through participatory design workshops highlighting participants needs and preferences in construction of single-family housing, and second through semi-structured interviews and discussions with residents related to housing challenges in the city. These combined methods provide a foundation for understanding the complexities of construction of housing in Kuala Lumpur and the challenges of integrating social, economic, environmental and cultural aspects in the design process.
This article is organised as follows: first, we explore the challenges of participatory design and construction of housing in Malaysia. Second, we discuss the context of our study in Kuala Lumpur and discuss the results of participatory design activities in Kuala Lumpur. Third we present the insights gained from participatory design activities organised in six neighbourhoods in Kuala Lumpur and in the final section we present some conclusions. This study contributes to establishment of a framework for participatory design in which residents are considered as active participants in the design process and not solely as passive tenants in housing projects.

Citizen participation and housing design: Challenges in Malaysia
Citizen's input has been a strong element in the design of housing models in the UK, the Netherlands and in the USA, particularly empowering lowincome and impoverished urban neighbourhoods and marginalized communities (Hatch 1984). Literature identifies development of effective and meaningful participatory design in Singapore that fosters social cohesion and community bonding in the neighbourhood (Cho and Chong 2020). In Peru's informal settlements, participatory design was used to support households also recognising local knowledge and priorities as a practice to learn and address inequalities in the settlement (Frediani 2016), and in Caracas, participatory design was used to improve urban spaces in the slums in the city (Carlos et al. 2017). Citizen participation in slum upgrading in Nairobi, Kenya promoted close interactions between different stakeholders (Mukeku 2020). In Istanbul, participation tools were used for the urban transformation processes and improvement of governance policies and transparency (G€ un, Pak, and Demir 2021). These participatory processes are seen as educational and outreach-oriented activities and are particularly helpful in approaching communities and inviting them to express their ideas (Hertzberger 1984;Sennett 1994).
Scholars have written about community building approaches in public housing through participation, including restoring life, opportunities and governance (Sanoff 1999), while others propose a framework for understanding of social and environmental contexts through participation (Perkins et al. 1990). Citizen participation in implementation of various strategies across a neighbourhood can also contribute to the creation of networks of partnerships amongst residents and as a result participants also assume 'ownership of the process' (Naparstek, Dooley, and Smith 1997, 14).
Throughout history, the transformation of the traditional Malaysian urban housing typologiesthe shop house and the bungalow, has been influenced by diverse cultural exchanges, while current housing policies in the country place emphasis on the development of affordable housing for its growing population (Hisham and Md Amin Nor 2020). Recent studies have considered the evolution of the Malay housing form and space-activity interactions through carrying out statistical analysis of layout patterns to establish the dominant positioning of rooms and spatial sequencing of activities (Seo, Ghani Mimi, and Sarkom 2022). Other work has examined resident's perceptions of low-cost housing and indicated that improvements in overall design would improve resident satisfaction (Mohit, Ibrahim, and Rashid 2010). Nevertheless, current studies fall short in understanding the unique patterns of internal organisation of the Malay housing typologies, both developed under the colonial influences and ones developed after country's independence in 1957 (Ju and Omar Saari 2010).
Although participatory design is a requirement stated in the planning law of Malaysia (Omar and Leh Oliver 2009;Abd-Razak et al. 2011), these requirements are particularly critical in Kuala Lumpur whose rapid transformation puts the provision of housing especially for the low-income groups as a problem for any future planning of the city (Bunnell, Barter, and Morshidi 2002). Shortage of land for development of low-cost housing in Kuala Lumpur furthermore contributes to the socio-spatial segregation in its urban core, where the central area becomes home to more profitable housing schemes (Bunnell, Barter, and Morshidi 2002). The demand for provision of low-cost housing in the city will continue to remain a significant problem and will be on the rise in the future as well, and any participatory design activities will directly impact the development of such housing schemes in the city.

Methodology and participatory design activities in Kuala Lumpur
In applying participatory design ideas in the context of Kuala Lumpur, this research engaged with 70 participants from six different neighbourhoods in Kuala Lumpur. All participants were residents in People's Housing Project The PPR programme, initiated in 1998 and developed by the National Housing Department in Malaysia, aimed to provide the lower income groups with adequate and affordable housing, which remains a vital issue in large urban areas in the country (Goh and Ahmad 2011). The PPR programme also aims to improve the standard of living amongst this group of citizens (Mohd-Rahim et al. 2019). In Kuala Lumpur, the apartments that were built as part of this programme are similar in design and layout, distributed across neighbourhoods in 18-storey apartment buildings. While the residents are generally satisfied with the scheme, it has been acknowledged that there are weaknesses in the design of the standard housing unit within the PPR apartment blocks. Studies acknowledge the importance of collecting citizen's voices for any future improvement of construction of housing in Kuala Lumpur, responding to the cultural and social needs of the users over time, contributing to the creation of sustainable and lively communities (Goh and Ahmad 2011).
As part of this research, we organised participatory design activities in six different PPR neighbourhoods in Kuala Lumpur: PPR Batu Muda, PPR Desa Rejang, PPR Seri Semarak, PPR Seri Alam, PPR Kerinchi and PPR Pantai Ria. The neighbourhoods selected for this study were chosen across different areas in the territory of Kuala Lumpur, also understanding the critical value of the PPR programme in Kuala Lumpur in providing housing for low-income communities in the city. The participatory design activities developed as part of this research sought to engage the residents of the PPR projects in the design process of future housing in the city, but also to understand their social, environmental and cultural preferences in the organisation of the dwelling.
Approaching the residents of each of the PPR neighbourhoods was facilitated by the community leaders, who were working closely with the researchers in inviting participants from each neighbourhood to participate in the study. The venues for each of the participatory design sessions were also in the PPR neighbourhood, in the community and meeting rooms of the neighbourhood and posters with the date, time and location of each of the sessions were displayed in advance also inviting any resident of the neighbourhood interested to participate to attend.
The study adopted multiple method research approach, consisting of individual interactions of each participant with a physical model and semi-structured interviews with participants that were designed to ascertain participants subjective responses following the interaction with the physical model. The physical model in scale of 1:50 of an outline of a housing unit with a size of 60 square meters served as a base for interaction amongst participants. In the process, participants also evaluated their existing housing conditions and outlined their social, environmental and cultural preferences for future housing. Outlining ideas through the physical model, participants were asked to highlight preferences for habitation and adaptation of an individual housing unit, by proposing their preferences for organisation and layout of the dwelling, number of rooms and the relationship between different rooms within the unit, including bedroom, living room, kitchen, bathroom and the possibility for an outdoor space. The outcomes of these sessions were documented using photographs and notes. In addition to the interactions with the physical model, a questionnaire was distributed to each participant at the end of each session and semi-structured discussion with participants was organised. The interviews consisted of closed ended and open-ended questions focusing on the socio-economic profile of the participant, awareness of environmental considerations and energy efficient housing, materials for construction and design goals in the current and the new dwelling and prioritizing areas within the housing unit and its flexibility.
The participants in these sessions had no previous experience in participatory design activities or similar participatory workshops. As shown in Table 1, 30 of the participants were female and 40 were male, and the majority, 36 individuals, were between 31-50 years old. The majority of the participants, 52, had only secondary education and only 7 had obtained a university degree. The majority of the participants in our survey earned less than 3,000 MYR per month (61%), and 37% had median monthly income between 3,000-6,000 MYR, increasingly lower than the monthly household income in Kuala Lumpur. During the corresponding time, the government income survey reported the median monthly household income in Kuala Lumpur as being 10,549 MYR (Department of Statistics Malaysia 2020). The household sizes of five or more people were the most common surveyed group (69%), indicating trends among families in the city.
Regarding the current dwelling characteristics (Table 2), the majority of the units within the surveyed PPR neighbourhood in which the participants currently live, 52, were between 50-70 sqm. In terms of ownership, the surveyed group was split relatively evenly, with a small majority (37) of participants paying rent for their property, while the remaining (33) participants indicated that they were the owners of the property in which they live. The overwhelming majority of the participants (69 people) have been residents in the PPR for more than 6 years, with 23 people (33% of the group) indicating they had been residents in the neighbourhood between 11 and 20 years.

Outcomes from participatory design activities in Kuala Lumpur
Individual interactions with the physical model as part of the participatory design activities in Kuala Lumpur enabled an acquisition of a large set of qualitative data with distinct characteristics and in the case of this study it proved to be an efficient way of mutual learning about preferences for dwelling of each participating individual ( Figure 2). The individual interactions with the physical model also served as a creative medium for selfexpression amongst participants. The participatory design activities developed in the PPR neighbourhoods in Kuala Lumpur, enabled residents to participate in the design process and contribute to the generation of ideas and elicit their social, economic and cultural needs for housing (Figure 3). The outcomes of these participatory design workshops enabled formulation of important considerations for the design of single-family housing units in Kuala Lumpur, not just for lowincome communities, but wider demographics as well.
In this study, participatory design experiments through an individual interaction with a physical model were seen as an open-ended process, promoting active participation of citizens, and in the process, the designer's role was extended as well -acting as facilitator and mediator. The ideas expressed through interactions with the physical model highlight individual preferences for internal organisation of a future housing unit that incorporates ideas about the relationship between the bedrooms and the bathroom, and the living room and the kitchen in the housing unit. Additional recommendations by the participants included the possibility of having an en-suite bathroom adjoining the master bedroom and the inclusion and positioning of a prayer room within the unit. Participants also included ideas about a separation of the kitchen and the dining area and integration of the dining area together with the living room within the proposed housing unit. Some participants in our sessions also explored possibilities for having a third bedroom within the housing unit, thus reducing the size of the living room. Having a balcony was also of an importance for some of the participants,  and its position was in a direct relationship with the living room. Some participants suggested that the proposed single-family dwelling should be larger than 60 square meters, so to be able to house larger families seen as typical in the country. The need for a storage space was also a theme that were commonly identified amongst participants. Safety is of a primary concern for future housing design (Table 3), reflecting directly on the increasing crime and recent break-in rates in some of the PPR neighbourhoods across Kuala Lumpur. The external appearance of the unit is of a second concern, a factor that participants linked with the quality of the unit including all the fittings and its internal organisation. As highlighted by the participants in the questionnaire, the living room is the most important room within the unit and is a centre for family life and social activities, directly impacting the quality of life of residents within each dwelling.
The analysis of the proposals following the interaction with the physical model by each participant was through a series of techniques based on a conceptually clustered matrix (Miles and Huberman Michael 1994). The outcomes of the individual interactions with the physical model were then systematised based on some overarching themes and similar responses in the internal organisation of the proposed unit, ensuring conceptual coherence amongst the proposals. The conceptually clustered matrix helped to identify  emerging summative design concepts including the spatial relationship between different rooms within the housing unit and the initial attitude towards design that helped in clustering the responses of the participants. Through this analysis, noting the spatial relationships between individual rooms within the unit, the following conceptual models of single-family housing units in Kuala Lumpur were outlined (Figure 4): 1) housing unit where the location of the bathroom is between two bedrooms. In such organisation, the living room is sharing its space with the dining area and the kitchen that has a direct access to a balcony, 2) housing unit that clusters the kitchen and the dining in a separate room and positions the bedrooms on one side of the housing unit, 3) housing unit where the kitchen and the bathroom are positioned on one side of the housing unit, sharing a wall, and 4) housing unit with a storage space in close proximity to the kitchen.
These conceptual schemes suggest possible pathways for future development of single-family housing in Malaysia. The internal organisation of housing units should provide socially and culturally adequate spatial settings, in which individual needs are addressed, directly impacting residents' future satisfaction with the housing unit. In this context, the participatory design activities in Kuala Lumpur are also seen as an opportunity to redefine the context of housing for low-income families in Kuala Lumpur and a practice for learning and reflection, connecting communities.
Lessons from participatory design activities in Kuala Lumpur: Connecting citizens through design 'Participation is the space in which hope is negotiated. What is clear is that this hope refers not just to a better future for the users of the built environment, but also to a better future for architectural practice.' (Till 2005, 42) Meeting the needs of future residents can set new standards in the design of housing and this study contributes to the understanding of residents' preferences and the social and cultural specificities in the context of housing for low-income groups in Kuala Lumpur. This study also outlines a multiple method research approach and highlights four possible pathways through which housing in Malaysia can be designed and developed ( Figure 5).
As part of this study, participatory design activities that were organised in six neighbourhoods across Kuala Lumpur triggered the interest of citizens in the design process, by being part of a larger vision for the design of new housing models in the city in which architects worked alongside communities in the design of future homes. The input from participants contributes directly towards the creation of socially meaningful design, actively using local knowledge and cultural preferences in the design of the proposed housing unit. This research illustrates that architects can gain valuable insights into preferences for dwelling by including the future residents in the design process. The roles of architects and residents in the participatory design process are therefore interdependent, creating also long-term impact and connecting communities.
Based on the participatory design workshops in Kuala Lumpur, we highlight two key areas for further consideration and equitable approach of the design process. The first one reflects on the positive outcomes by participants that do not have any participatory design experience and in particular their interest in interaction with the physical model, seen as a design tool and a platform through which citizen participation can take place. The second one is a consideration of the participatory design as an open-ended process and a strength in understanding the cultural preferences of citizens that can shape future housing design practices. The collaboration between different stakeholders in the design process can also lead to design innovation that can have positive impact on the users. Findings from this study indicate that participatory design activities contribute to the transparency of the design process and the design also benefits from interactions between different stakeholders. Citizen participation should be at the centre of policy objectives for future development of housing, where local communities are empowered to take up part in the decision-making processes. The outcomes of the participatory design activities can enhance the understanding of the needs of future residents as well as their expectations about the construction of new housing in the city. The lessons learned from the participatory design activities in Kuala Lumpur offer invaluable opportunities and can contribute to the creation of design guidelines for housing in Kuala Lumpur in the future engaging architects, communities and the public in the design process.

Conclusion
This study highlights pathways through which participatory design can play a role in the development of new housing for low-income communities in Kuala Lumpur and proposes new spatial conditions for habitation for these groups in the city. Similar to other contexts (Frediani 2016;Carlos et al. 2017;Figure 5. Discussions with participants from PPR Seri Semarak in Kuala Lumpur, following participatory design activities. Source: Authors photograph. Cho and Chong 2020;Mukeku 2020), the participatory design experiments that were developed as part of this research can also be used in connecting communities and generating new knowledge, that is embodied, experimental and inclusive (Friedman 2008).
Creation of resilient neighbourhoods through involvement of local community contributes to social cohesion. Participatory design activities can also provide avenues for communities to initiate changes that support neighbourhood's social and spatial sustainability. Having organised participatory design activities in Kuala Lumpur, this study provides insights in housing design following workshops with residents in the city that address their cultural considerations and preferences. The methodology that was developed as part of this study contributes to the literature and practice of participatory design through multiple method research approach of individual interactions with a physical model and semi-structured interviews, also revealing the outcomes of active interaction between the participants and the architects in the process. These practices are a starting point for connecting communities through participatory design activities.
Following the organisation of the participatory design activities in Kuala Lumpur, we highlight two key challenges in operating participatory design activities in the city. The first one is involving large number of dedicated participants in the participatory design activities and the second one is integrating the outcomes of the workshops into the final housing design. These challenges are important when considering and implementing participatory design activities in local communities. It is important that in the process of housing design, the voices of different participants and groups are heard and active participation and mutual learning are used as a genuine decisionforming opportunity for all.