Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
Generating applicable urban design knowledge
Cortesão, João; Lenzholzer, Sanda; Klok, Lisette; Jacobs, Cor; Kluck, Jeroen
DOI
10.1080/13574809.2019.1650638
Publication date
2019
Document Version
Final published version
Published in
Journal of Urban Design
License
CC BY-NC-ND
Link to publication
Citation for published version (APA):
Cortesão, J., Lenzholzer, S., Klok, L., Jacobs, C., & Kluck, J. (2019). Generating applicable
urban design knowledge. Journal of Urban Design.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2019.1650638
General rights
It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Disclaimer/Complaints regulations
If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please contact the library:
https://www.amsterdamuas.com/library/contact/questions, or send a letter to: University Library (Library of the University of Amsterdam and Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences), Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjud20
Journal of Urban Design
ISSN: 1357-4809 (Print) 1469-9664 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjud20
Generating applicable urban design knowledge
João Cortesão, Sanda Lenzholzer, Lisette Klok, Cor Jacobs & Jeroen Kluck
To cite this article: João Cortesão, Sanda Lenzholzer, Lisette Klok, Cor Jacobs & Jeroen Kluck (2019): Generating applicable urban design knowledge, Journal of Urban Design, DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2019.1650638To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2019.1650638
© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
Published online: 27 Aug 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 447
View related articles
Generating applicable urban design knowledge
João Cortesão a, Sanda Lenzholzer a, Lisette Klokb, Cor Jacobs c and Jeroen Kluckb
aLandscape Architecture Group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands;bUrban
Technology, University of Applied Sciences Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;cWageningen
Environmental Research, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands
ABSTRACT
This article explores how the combination of research approaches in Research Through Design (RTD) can contribute to generating applic-able urban design knowledge. The article is based on learnings from the‘Really cooling water bodies in cities’ project, a pragmatist RTD combining post-positivist, constructivist and transformative/partici-patory approaches along six design iterations. The results indicate that the combination of research approaches in RTD can contribute to generating applicable urban design knowledge when the approaches are carefully chosen and combined as to provide feed-back on each other, based on a coherent rationale driven by clear research questions and goals.
Introduction
This article addresses an overarching methodological question: how can the combination of different research approaches in Research Through Design (RTD) contribute to generat-ing applicable urban design knowledge? The current and future conditions of cities, in domains such as urban climate or energy efficiency, set new challenges for urban design. These challenges‘are as much about process as they are about form’ (Inam2011, 258) and call for evidence-based knowledge going beyond the support of site-specific design (Lenzholzer, Nijhuis, and Cortesão2018, 383).
RTD can assist urban designers in addressing this need. RTD is a process somewhat ‘native’ to design activities because it places the production of original creative work at the centre of the inquiry (Carruth2015, 26). In RTD, new knowledge generation is based on study, recording, examination and evaluation (Nijhuis and Bobbink 2012, 243) in an iterative process where a design iteration and its evaluations inform the subsequent iteration until relevant new knowledge is achieved. Clear research questions guide this process and give structure to design activities.
Working within suitable research approaches helps answering these questions success-fully. A research approach entails aspects of science philosophy, research designs and specific methods (Creswell2014, 5). In line with Creswell, the study herewith presented assumes that combining different research approaches in RTD leads to applicable design knowledge (Lenzholzer, Duchhart, and Koh2013, 124), in particular to design prototypes.
CONTACTJoão Cortesão joao.cortesao@wur.nl
https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2019.1650638
© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
In order to reflect on how the combination of different research approaches in RTD can contribute to generating applicable urban design knowledge, this article presents the way design prototypes for cool urban water environments were developed in the‘Really cooling water bodies in cities’ project (REALCOOL). In this research, ‘prototype’ is meant as a design archetype, i.e., a research output illustrating or elaborating a new perspective through design (Wensveen and Matthews2015, 275). The main research question (MRQ) of REALCOOL was: ‘which combinations of urban water bodies with shading, vaporization and ventilation strategies are most effective in improving outdoor human thermal sensation?’. The aim of the REALCOOL prototypes was to depict these combinations and the resulting physical cooling effects. As the prototypes are supposed to be used in urban design practice, three additional sub-research questions (SRQ) were addressed: ‘what is the rainwater storage capacity of the prototypes?’ (SRQ1); ‘do the prototypes meet basic aesthetical, functional, costs, maintenance and health issues?’ (SRQ2); ‘how do people perceive the prototypes?’ (SRQ3). Answering the REALCOOL research questions and producing applicable design knowledge (the prototypes) required a rigorous production and testing of design alternatives with RTD and entailed the use of different research approaches.
Materials and methods
REALCOOL combined three approaches to academic research identified by Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) and translated to RTD in landscape architecture and urban design by Lenzholzer, Duchhart, and Koh (2013): post-positivist, constructivist and transformative/ participatory. These approaches can be briefly described as follows:
● The post-positivist approach involves identifying cause-effect relationships upon which hypotheses or conjectures are based. It is characterized by determination, reductionism, empirical observation and measurement, and theory verification. The produced knowledge is usually quantitative, objective and generalizable. In RTD, quantitative evaluations are utilized to test designs on objective criteria, e.g., cool-ing effects.
● The constructivist approach is characterized by understanding multiple meanings (objective and subjective) and their social construction, often in a specific context. It usually involves discussions with different subjects to know the meanings they assign to the phenomena under study. For RTD, this approach entails assessing designs on their cultural, aesthetic or ethical values.
● The transformative/participatory approach deals with addressing contemporary social issues and includes different groups of society. It is collaborative and change-oriented. In RTD, this approach engages citizens or other stakeholders in the production of evidence during participatory processes around, for example, the identification pro-blems or the evaluation of design proposals.
The combination of these three research approaches is defined as a pragmatist approach. This approach focuses on the consequences of actions, it is problem-centred, pluralistic, and real-world oriented (Creswell2014, 11). It utilizes all possible (relevant) methods of inquiry to answer the research questions at hand.
The core assumption in this study is that the pragmatist approach, being the combina-tion of qualitative and quantitative approaches,‘provides a more complete understanding of a research problem than either approach alone’ (4). In RTD, pragmatist approaches involve the integration of knowledge because an issue can partly lie within the workings of nature (post-positivist knowledge) and partly relate to socio-cultural aspects (constructivist and transformative/participatory knowledge), often in a given context (Lenzholzer, Duchhart, and Koh2013, 124). Literature indicates that pragmatist approaches are parti-cularly useful to urban design and landscape architecture but that its usefulness has not been tested (Lenzholzer, Duchhart, and van den Brink 2017; Lenzholzer, Nijhuis, and Cortesão2018).
The REALCOOL RTD project was deemed a suitable test case to adopt a pragmatist approach to answer its diverse (sub-)research questions. The three research approaches mentioned above were combined along six iterations (Figure 1). Design and test stages alternated in all iterations as to systematically formulate and test design hypotheses. The research approaches were incorporated into the iterations for framing the designing and testing activities within specific research questions. Figure 1 shows which question(s) each iteration focused on.
Figure 1.The REALCOOL pragmatist RTD. The question(s) that each iteration was mainly focused on are underlined.
Post-positivist approach
The post-positivist approach was used in all iterations for answering the MRQ and SRQ1. For the prototypes to be replicable, thefirst step was to define relevant environments into which the design experiments could be projected. These environments were called ‘test-beds’ and refer to 3D spatial configurations of frequently occurring small urban water bodies in The Netherlands. The testbeds were identified in nine Dutch cities with an evident urban heat island effect and permanent surface water bodies. Geographic information system maps, Google Earth views and in situ observations were used for characterizing the water bodies. The dimensions of the water bodies were averaged into one representa-tive spatial layout. The relevance of the identified water bodies was judged by practitioners during thefirst of four design workshops (a constructivist method). Eight water body types were set as the REALCOOL testbeds (Figure 2) and categorized according to layout: canal, ‘singel’, ditch and pond. The inclusion of east-west and north-south orientations doubled the number of testbeds.
Designing within a post-positivist framework involved projecting optimal biometeorolo-gical effects and increased rainwater storage capacity into the testbeds. In the first iteration, the design experiments dealt strictly with biometeorological parameters (design 1). Various design elements (for shading, water vaporization and ventilation) were combined in attempts to create maximal cooling effects during a typical tropical day (Tmax ≥ 30 °C), around 21st of June at 3 p.m. in The Netherlands. Typical designing activities, such as sketching or physical scale models (Figure 3), were used for experimenting with different design options.
Post-positivist testing included expert judgements by the urban meteorologists and water specialists of the research team, and micrometeorological simulations (Figure 4) with the Envi-met model. Water and air temperature, and Physiological Equivalent Temperature (PET) were the variables considered for the simulations on biometeorological effects. Water storage increase was quantified in terms of percentage with the software used for producing the drawings.
Figure 3.Example of a physical model used for exploring different design options in REALCOOL.
Constructivist approach
The constructivist approach was used for answering SRQ2. This approach was added (design 3 to 6) to enrich the post-positivist designs with parameters commonly encoun-tered in urban design practice: aesthetical appeal, functionality, costs, maintenance requirements and health effects.
Testing under a constructivist approach (testing 3 to 5) involved the assessment of the prototypes on these parameters by different ‘user groups’ (representatives from Dutch urban design and landscape architecture offices, consultants in hydrology and public health, and municipalities). The assessments were made during three design workshops where design refinement principles were retrieved from the feedback the user groups gave on the parameters mentioned above. Feedback was recorded through sketches and documented on assessment matrices comprising a voting scale and a section where the votes could be explained (Figure 5).
Transformative/participatory approach
The transformative/participatory approach dealt with answering SRQ3. The feedback from the general public and designers on the prototypes was gathered through an online visual inquiry (testing 4) and a‘reality check’ (testing 4a), respectively. The feed-back was translated into design refinement principles for iteration 5.
The visual inquiry aimed at gathering the opinion of the Dutch population on the prototypes applied to hypothetical environments. To this end, 16 photorealistic images (Figure 6) based on the designs (design 4) were produced and presented in an online platform. The inquiry questions focused on aesthetical parameters as these are the ones people could more easily relate to their empirical experience.
With the‘reality check’ (test 4a), the prototypes were implemented in real cases to the end of assessing their biometeorological performance and applicability to practice.
met simulations (a post-positivist method) were used to assess thermal effects. Applicability to practice was discussed during meetings with the design teams and documented in assessment matrices similar to the one used in the design workshops (Figure 5). All cases dealt with ongoing new build or retrofitting operations, had a spatial and functional match with the REALCOOL testbeds, and were at a stage when the prototypes could best be applied, i.e., before detailed design.
The REALCOOL pragmatist RTD
The combination of these three research approaches and their methods was the REALCOOL pragmatist approach to RTD. Approaches and methods, their allocation within the RTD process, as well as the number of iterations were determined as to answer the research questions and produce the prototypes. In order to effectively answer the research questions while keeping sight of this pluralistic RTD as a whole, design matrices (Figure 7) were used. These matrices rated the efficiency of the design hypotheses around each research question.
As an illustration of how the design guidelines incorporated in the prototypes synthesize the different research approaches, the RTD process for one of the prototypes, ‘singel 2 north-south’ (singel 2 NS) is now presented (Figures 8 and9).
Prototype ‘singel 2 NS’ comprises two design guidelines: (1) introducing clusters of trees; (2) softening the slopes on the water body edges. The way the inputs from the research approaches where synthesized into these guidelines can be briefly described as follows:
● Under the post-positivist approach, thefirst iteration applied a dense green cover to achieve maximum cooling effects. The micrometeorological simulations showed positive effects regarding shade but also that the dense tree canopy
increased PET by blocking wind. The clusters of trees were thereby introduced in the second iteration as to provide shade while enabling cooling breezes across the water body through the gaps between them. The reshaping of slopes on the water edges was revised throughout the iterations till an optimal water storage increase was achieved.
● Under the constructivist approach,‘singel 2 NS’ was systematically revised as to develop: (1) aesthetical appeal by enabling ‘visual diversity and connections’ through clustering trees and introducing different tree types; (2) functionality and health effects by fostering ‘recreational activities closer to water, physical exercise and psychological wellbeing’ through the soft-sloped water edges and the steps therein introduced; (3) maintenance requirements and health by ‘redu-cing the amount of organic material falling into water’ and improving ‘accessi-bility to the water edges’, i.e., keeping trees to a minimum; (4) and costs by ‘optimizing efficiency while lowering installation costs’.
● The transformative/participatory approach led to further revising the clusters of trees regarding positioning, quantity and types of trees, and to improving safety by widening the green slopes.
Figure 7.Impression of the REALCOOL design matrices used for evaluating design alternatives (A and B).
Figure 8.Testbed for prototype ‘singel 2 NS’.
Figure 9. Design measures (indicated as blue/ thicker lines) for prototype‘singel 2 NS’.
Testing the REALCOOL pragmatist RTD
Understanding the relevance of the REALCOOL pragmatist RTD in answering the research questions and generating applicable urban design knowledge called for a general reflection and testing on the combination of research approaches. This broader view was necessary for answering the central question of this paper: how can the combination of different research approaches in RTD contribute to generating applicable urban design knowledge?
To this end, an online questionnaire (Table 1) was sent out to the user group members, which held relevant expertise and an holistic view on the REALCOOL RTD process. The questionnaire was prepared with attention to aspects such as wording, clarity and anonymity (Albaum and Smith2012; Gideon2012; Manzo and Burke2012). All questions were placed as close-ended statements. Six groups of statements were included based on a critical reflection within the research team on the core aspects of the REALCOOL RTD process:
(1) Testbeds: relevance of the testbeds in creating prototypes comprising replicable design guidelines;
(2) RTD focuses: relevance of focuses on the different research questions;
(3) Sequence of RTD focuses: appropriate placement of focuses along the RTD as to enable a cumulative process;
(4) Quality of designing: appropriate inclusion of the design parameters discussed in the design workshops;
(5) Quality of testing: appropriate inclusion and use of testing methods;
(6) Applicability to practice: suitability of thefinal prototypes to design practice. The feedback on these statements was given on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’. Optional open-ended questions/statements were included so that respondents could mention missing aspects or share what could have been different. The questionnaire was built with the online tool Typeform and was available for two months.
Results and discussion
The questionnaire on the REALCOOL Pragmatist RTD allowed to evaluate this pluralistic methodology as a whole. All eight invitees completed the questionnaire. The results for each statement will now be presented and discussed.
(1) ‘It made sense to work with the testbeds’: 2 respondents strongly agreed and 6 agreed.
Based on these results, the first inference is that working with the testbeds allowed conducting design experiments comprising replicable design guidelines, i.e., guidelines that work beyond‘a specific case to a more generalizable set of situations’ (Prominski
2016, 195). The prototypes work in the interface between site-specificity and abstraction. Accordingly, the testbeds had to be abstract enough to not refer to a particular location but specific enough to be recognizable water body types. Afterwards, it was necessary
Table 1.Contents of the questionnaire on the REALCOOL Pragmatist RTD.
Topic Contextualization Main question Answer Second question Testbeds In the beginning of the project we
looked for typical urban water bodies in Dutch cities and together with you, the users group, we defined the most relevant types. Eight types of water bodies were identified in four categories: gracht, singel, sloot and vijver (east-west and north-south orientations). We then translated them into 3D spatial reference situations and used them as our‘testbeds’ in which we implemented all design options in the subsequent RTD process.
It made sense to work with the ‘testbeds’. Likert scale: strongly disagree disagree slightly disagree neither disagree nor agree slightly agree agree strongly agree
If working with the ‘testbeds’ did not make sense, what other method would have been better?
Focuses in the RTD process
Each iteration in the RTD process had a different research focus that guided the designing and testing. Iteration 1 dealt with achieving maximal cooling effects; iteration 2 focused on increasing water storage capacity and cooling effects; iteration 3 was centred on practice criteria (function, costs, maintenance, aesthetics) and cooling effects; and in iteration 4 we made a last test of cooling effects and built the final prototypes/animations.
The different research focuses at each iteration were relevant. I missed this crucial
focus in the RTD process (optional):
Open answer
If the different focuses were not relevant, why was that?
Sequence of focuses in the RTD process
The sequence of the focuses we dealt with in the iterations was based on the main priorities set in the project. During all iterations we considered the cooling effects of the designs. Cooling effects were
supplemented with other topics (water storage in Iteration 2, practice criteria in Iteration 3).
The sequence of focuses in the different iterations was appropriate.
Likert scale If the sequence of focuses was not appropriate, which sequence should have been used?
Quality of designing
Each iteration consisted of developing design alternatives and testing those designs according to different design criteria. We have discussed all the design criteria in the user meetings but you might think differently about these in hindsight. The formal/aesthetic quality of the designs was satisfying. The functionality of
the designs was satisfying.
Likert scale In case aesthetic quality was not satisfying, what was the reason? In case functionality
was not satisfying, what was the reason? The implementation
costs of the designs would be acceptable.
In case costs would not be acceptable, what would the reason be? The maintenance effort of implemented designs would be acceptable. In case maintenance requirements would not be acceptable, what would the reason be?
to have a critical view on the generalizability of the projected design measures. This allowed addressing the design process over abstracted environments while assessing the design results on a reliable basis, a fundamental idea in RTD (Lenzholzer, Nijhuis, and Cortesão2018, 383).
(2) ‘The different research focuses at each iteration were relevant’: 2 respondents strongly agreed, 4 agreed, 1 slightly agreed and 1 did not agree nor disagree. (3) ‘The sequence of focuses in the different iterations was appropriate’: 2
respon-dents strongly agreed, 5 agreed and 1 slightly agreed.
These results indicate that the different research focuses were relevant, complete and set up in the appropriate sequence. They support the argument that, in pragmatist approaches, the research questions‘guide the choice and order of suitable knowledge claims and their related research methods’ (Lenzholzer, Duchhart, and Koh2013, 125). In more detail, in REALCOOL:
● The post-positivist approach answered the MRQ by showing that the most e ffec-tive combinations of shading, vaporization and ventilation around water are those where shade with trees is increased near the water, where airflows unobstructed, and where water fountains and mists are introduced close to people. By applying these findings, the prototypes presented PET values 6–9 °C lower than the
Table 1.(Continued).
Topic Contextualization Main question Answer Second question The effects of the
implemented designs on health would be acceptable.
In case health effects would not be acceptable, what would the reason be?
Quality of testing
We used different testing methods in the different iterations. Testing methods included expert judgments,
micrometeorological simulations and the evaluations during the user committee meetings. We conducted an online visual inquiry about how attractive the general public wouldfind environments resulting from the prototypes. We also did a‘reality check’ in which we projected the prototypes into real projects to test their applicability.
The testing methods were appropriate. I missed this crucial
method (optional):
Likert scale Open answer
If the testing methods were not appropriate, what should have been changed?
Applicability of thefinal prototypes to practice
A major purpose of our prototypes is their applicability in practice. In the‘reality check’ we have already tested most prototypes in real projects. However, we do not know if the prototypes would still be considered useful for application in other projects.
The prototypes are easily applicable in practice. I would use the
prototypes in practice.
Likert scale If the prototypes are not easily applicable, what should be different? If you would not use
the prototypes in practice, why is that?
testbeds. Water storage was increased by 15–130 %. This approach provided a reliable basis for developing the design experiments with objective data on thermal effects and water storage capacity throughout the RTD. The PET maps generated with Envi-met provided values and spatial distributions of perceived temperature that indicated which design elements should be kept, revised or removed, and to which extent.
● The constructivist approach answered SRQ2 with creating prototypes that, overall, meet basic aesthetical, functional, costs, maintenance and health issues. This approach enriched the previous approach with qualitative constructs around the ability of the prototypes to underpin high quality projects, which involves func-tional, spatial, aesthetical and ecological aspects, amongst others (Prominski2016, 194). Without these parameters, the applicability of the prototypes would have been inadequately addressed irrespective the cooling effects they convey.
● The transformative/participatory approach answered SRQ3 by showing that, overall, people’s perceptions were positive for prototypes applied to hypothetical environ-ments and to real life projects. This approach provided an extra layer of e ffective-ness to the design decisions coupling biometeorological effects and urban design parameters, gathered from the feedback of citizens and designers.
Through these focuses, design decisions were made more consciously towards the goal of the research. The systematic record of the reasons behind each design option held control of the creative process while allowing its freedom. This echoes the argument that the methods and manifestations of RTD emphasize inspiration, realization in-the-world and proof by demonstration (Stappers2007, 82). Furthermore, it reciprocates the idea of urban design as a discipline‘where a diversity of contributions, both theoretical and practical, are welcomed and celebrated’ (Carmona 2016, 550) and where, thus, the tensions between theory and practice (Biddulph2012; Sanders and Baker2016) should be dissolved. Pragmatist RTD might offer a relevant contribute to this matter.
(4) Quality of designing
● ‘The formal/aesthetic quality of the designs was satisfying’: 1 respondent strongly agreed, 5 agreed and 2 slightly agreed.
● ‘The functionality of the designs was satisfying’: 1 strongly agreed, 6 agreed and 1 slightly agreed.
● ‘The implementation costs of the designs would be acceptable’: 2 respondents agreed, 1 slightly agreed, 4 did not agree nor disagree and 1 slightly disagreed.
● ‘The maintenance effort of implemented designs would be acceptable’: 3 respon-dents agreed, 1 slightly agreed and 4 did not agree nor disagree. The open-ended questions on what could have been different revealed that, for both costs and maintenance, the neutral and negative votes were linked to the fact that a full appreciation of effects would require an in-depth analysis and know-how.
● ‘The effects of the implemented designs on health would be acceptable’: 1 respon-dent strongly agreed, 2 agreed, 3 slightly agreed and 2 did not agree nor disagree.
These results confirm that, overall, the urban design parameters included were properly addressed. The replicable nature of the prototypes implied approaching these para-meters in a somewhat abstract manner. For instance, the shape and positioning of trees are given but the species are not specified so that designers have the freedom to select them while including the biometeorological effects developed in REALCOOL.
(5)‘The testing methods were appropriate’: 2 respondents strongly agreed, 5 agreed and 1 slightly agreed.
The results from the questionnaire indicate that also the testing methods were appro-priate and complete. In RTD,‘at any given point, the “state” of the design is evaluated in relation to previous steps and successively developed further’ (Breen 2002, 96). In line with this idea, and as illustrated with prototype‘singel 2 NS’, the REALCOOL RTD process produced quantitative and qualitative evidence applicable as design refinement princi-ples according to which the prototypes were systematically revised.
(6) Applicability to practice
● ‘The prototypes are easily applicable in practice’: 4 respondents agreed, 1 slightly agreed, 2 did not agree nor disagree and 1 slightly disagreed.
● ‘I would use the prototypes in practice’: 1 respondent strongly agreed, 3 agreed, 2 did not agree nor disagree, 1 slightly disagreed and 1 disagreed. For both state-ments in this group, the open-ended questions revealed that the neutral and negative votes came from respondents operating out of the designfield.
These results indicate that the prototypes are applicable to design practice. This is likely to result from the fact that the prototypes were developed as‘experimental designs’ which, according to Creswell (2009, 145–146), ‘test the impact of a treatment (or an intervention) on an outcome, controlling for all other factors that might influence that outcome’. Furthermore, RTD uses the design process ‘as a vehicle to frame spatial problems visually, explore possibilities and to generate solutions’ (Nijhuis, Stolk, and Hoekstra2016, 3). This enables visual thinking, a typical design activity that‘allows to “digest” information in a rational and systematic way’ (4). In this perspective, synthesizing visually multiple combinations of knowl-edge created with RTD can enhance their applicability. REALCOOL offers an illustration on this, regarding integrated knowledge on the creation of cooler urban water environments.
In summary, the results of the questionnaire on the REALCOOL RTD confirm that pragmatist RTD is useful to generate applicable urban design knowledge. The results support previous assertions on pragmatist approaches to RTD (Lenzholzer, Duchhart, and Koh2013).
Conclusion
The lessons learned from REALCOOL suggest that the combination of research approaches in RTD can contribute to generating applicable urban design knowledge when the different approaches are carefully chosen and combined as to provide feedback on each other, based on a coherent rationale driven by clear research questions and goals. Based on the
REALCOOL lessons, the combination of different research approaches in RTD can contribute to generating applicable urban design knowledge by:
● conducting design experiments able of generating replicable design guidelines, which requires setting the right basis for designing from the very outset of the RTD and carefully weighing their generalizability throughout the RTD process;
● ensuring the relevance of each research approach and that all necessary approaches are included, by reference to clear research questions;
● setting up the different approaches in the appropriate sequence, for enabling a cumulative process while keeping the whole methodology picture in sight;
● ensuring the appropriateness of testing methods and that all necessary methods are included;
● endowing the research constructs with operationality issues, which relates to including design practice aspects throughout the RTD process.
These conclusions can also be regarded as basic principles for pragmatist RTD to generate evidence-based, practice-oriented design knowledge. Although these principles should be adjusted to the specificity of a research, they might help achieving design research products discussable on objective parameters and, thereby, bring urban design to a new level of societal relevance.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This study was part of the Research through Design project [no. 14589], financed by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), the Taskforce for Applied Research SIA and the AMS Institute.
ORCID
João Cortesão http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4855-6281
Sanda Lenzholzer http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5417-1804
Cor Jacobs http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4079-9067
References
Albaum, G., and S. M. Smith.2012.“Why People Agree to Participate in Surveys.” In Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences, edited by L. Gideon, 179–193. New York: Springer.
Biddulph, M. 2012. “The Problem with Thinking about or for Urban Design.” Journal of Urban Design 17 (1): 1–20. doi:10.1080/13574809.2011.646251.
Breen, J. 2002. “Designerly Enquiry.” In Ways to Study and Research Urban, Architectural and Technical Design, edited by T. de Jong and T. van der Voordt, 95–102. Delft: Delft University Press.
Carmona, M.2016.“Urban Design, a Call for Inter-disciplinarity.” Journal of Urban Design 21 (5): 548–550. doi:10.1080/13574809.2016.1220160.
Carruth, S. J.2015.“Infrastructural Urbanism that Learns from Place: Operationalising Meta Material Practices to Guide Renewable Energy Planning in Greenland.” PhD diss., Aarhus University. Creswell, J.2009. Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3rd ed.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J.2014. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th ed. London: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., and V. L. Plano Clark.2011. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Gideon, L.2012.“The Art of Question Phrasing.” In Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences, edited by L. Gideon, 91–107. New York: Springer.
Inam, A.2011.“From Dichotomy to Dialectic: Practising Theory in Urban Design.” Journal of Urban Design 16 (2): 257–277. doi:10.1080/13574809.2011.552835.
Lenzholzer, S., I. Duchhart, and J. Koh.2013.“Research through Designing in Landscape Architecture.” Landscape and Urban Planning 113: 120–127. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.02.003.
Lenzholzer, S., I. Duchhart, and A. van Den Brink.2017.“The Relationship between Research and Design.” In Research in Landscape Architecture: Methods and Methodology, edited by A. van den Brink, D. Bruns, H. Tobi, and S. Bell, 45–64. London: Routledge.
Lenzholzer, S., S. Nijhuis, and J. Cortesão.2018.“RTD in Landscape Architecture : A First State of the Art.” Proceedings of the Design Research Society 2018 Conference 382–394. doi:10.21606/ dma.2017.293.
Manzo, A. N., and J. M. Burke.2012.“Increasing Response Rate in Web-Based/Internet Surveys.” In Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences, edited by L. Gideon, 327–343. New York: Springer.
Nijhuis, S., and I. Bobbink.2012.“Design–Related Research in Landscape Architecture.” Journal of Design Research 10 (4): 239–257. doi:10.1504/JDR.2012.051172.
Nijhuis, S., E. Stolk, and M. J. Hoekstra. 2016. “Teaching Urbanism: The Delft Approach.” ICE Proceedings– Urban Design and Planning 1–11. doi:10.1680/jurdp.16.00013.
Prominski, M. 2016. “Design Guidelines.” In Research in Landscape Architecture: Methods and Methodology, edited by A. van den Brink, D. Bruns, H. Tobi, and S. Bell, 194–208. London: Routledge.
Sanders, P., and D. Baker.2016.“Applying Urban Morphology Theory to Design Practice.” Journal of Urban Design 21 (2): 213–233. doi:10.1080/13574809.2015.1133228.
Stappers, P. J.2007.“Doing Design as a Part of Doing Research.” In Design Research Now: Essays and Selected Projects, edited by R. Michel, 81–91. Berlin: Birkhäuser.
Wensveen, S., and B. Matthews.2015.“Prototypes and Prototyping in Design Research.” In The Routledge Companion to Design Research, edited by P. Rodgers and J. Yee, 262–276. London: Routledge.
