Portret van de invulling van de functie van 'wijkcoördinator' bij Grounds/New Grounds, Rotterdam, als voorbeeld van een werkwijze om het contact tussen en culturele instelling en de samenleving gestalte te geven.
DOCUMENT
This chapter discusses the efforts of community workers to obtain consent in local communities as a basis for taking action on issues that are affecting local people’s lives. Crucial here is that community workers resist the initial urge to settle for consensus and as a consequencelimit the possibilities for creativity, exploration and interpersonal development. Drawing on two case studies, one from Amsterdam (the Netherlands) and one from Chelsea (US), the requirements and process of acquiring consent are outlined. Consent in general refers to a form of permission to act or take action. In this chapter we consider it as a sense of approval by neighbourhood community members to engage in a collective course of action. Community workers often play a crucial part in the acquisition of community consent as they support the process of recognition of the diversity of interests, opinions and values that characterises local life. Consent is necessary for creatingsustainable local initiatives, incorporating, instead of eliminating, conflicting positions. This acknowledgement of diversity can be seen as an ethical requirement in community development practice, but also as a strategic issue for community workers. After all, without being able to obtain legitimacy for their engagement with local issues, effective community development work is impossible.This chapter focuses on neighbourhood-based community development work in geographical communities. However, similar principles apply in all forms of community development, including work with communities of interest and identity. We use the term‘community worker’ to refer to someone who takes on a facilitating and coordinating role with members of communities to build community capacity and/or bring about social change. Such workers may be paid and professionally qualified, or unpaid volunteers andactivists. They may live in the communities where they work/are active, or reside outside these areas. These circumstances influence the legitimacy of their interventions, as well as how consent is gained and consensus reached.
DOCUMENT
"Objectives: Research on what matters most to people with dementia is crucial for developing tailored interventions and support. This study explored how people with dementia experience their everyday lives, providing insight into what is important to them to live the best they can at home. Methods: Inspired by a phenomenological approach, open interviews were conducted with 15 people with dementia, supplemented by home tours and walking interviews. Data collection included one to three sessions per participant. Data were analysed using descriptive content analysis and followed the phases of open, axial, and selective coding. A co‐researcher group of seven people with dementia was consulted during the analysis to help interpret the emergent findings. Findings: Six dimensions of what matters most in everyday life were identified: 1) Engaging in meaningful activities, which included routines, household chores, leisure, day activities, and volunteering or work; 2) Keeping a sense of connection, in relationships within the home, with family, friends, groups, and the neighbourhood; 3) Having a sense of belonging, which included attachments inside and outside the home, and to cherished objects; 4) Connecting to self, which included the ability to reflect on past experiences, live in the present moment and anticipate the future; 5) Adjusting to ongoing changes, which included alterations in sensory perceptions, perceptions of the physical environment, and navigating shifts in interpersonal dynamics; 6) Being open to help and support, from professionals, community and society. Conclusions: For people with dementia, everyday life is a continuous balancing act between what matters most and what can be achieved daily. This is not only related to dementia but is also embedded in the wider perspective of life history, relational networks, and the physical environment. This study highlights the importance of identifying what matters most to people with dementia to provide person‐centred support."
MULTIFILE
Background: Most studies on older adults' vitality focus on linear connections between determinants and outcomes. To design more comprehensive and impactful approaches to support the vitality of older adults, a better understanding of the interplay among elements that shape their vitality is necessary. Objective: To uncover the underlying dynamic system that drives vitality in older adults, drawing directly from older adults' perspectives. Methods: During three group model-building sessions with 10–12 older adults (≥ 55 years old), a causal loop diagram with relevant feedback loops was developed through co-creation with older adults. The construction and analysis of the causal loop diagram were facilitated using the online modelling tools Vensim and Kumu. The group model-building sessions were guided by Scriptapedia, an online guide to conducting group model-building practices. Results: The final CLD consisted of 15 elements contributing to older adults' vitality, organised into three themes: ‘Psychological and emotional elements’, ‘Social connections and support’ and ‘Lifestyle and habits’. A total of 41 reinforcing feedback loops were identified, with 21 involving all three themes, 15 connecting two themes and 5 within a single theme. Conclusions: This study displays the complex interplay of elements influencing older adults' vitality, highlighting the critical roles of psychological, social and lifestyle-related elements. The participatory-led approach yielded co-produced insights that inform public health strategies, underscoring the need for comprehensive, multidisciplinary approaches to promote older adults' vitality. Such approaches must offer social opportunities and foster individuals' capacity and motivation to engage in meaningful social relationships. Patient or Public Contribution: The study was conducted in collaboration with a municipal policymaker and a coordinator of local community centres, who provided input on participant recruitment, materials, data interpretation, ethical considerations and result dissemination. During data collection, twelve older adults participated in three group model-building sessions, collaboratively developing a causal loop diagram to explore elements of vitality and their interconnections. Ongoing member checking with participants throughout the process ensured the analysis was refined and the researchers' interpretations were validated.
DOCUMENT
Cities are constantly in transition. Spatial production worldwide is generated by governments, business, developers, informal settlers, et cetera; sometimes cities expand, but increasingly there is a process of reurbanisation of existing urban patterns contronted with deterioration, dysfunctionality, or obsolescence. In many situations, funding, power and technology determine how the course of urbanisation. Communities, groups and individuals with limited access to funding, power and technology need empowerment to exercise their right to shape and improve their own evironment, while respecting health, equity and ecology. The research centre for Smart Urban Redesign (SURD) at Zuyd University of Applied Sciences seeks to work on this empowerment for communities. This study presents SURD’s approach to neighbourhood revitalisation.
DOCUMENT
This project builds upon a collaboration which has been established since 15 years in the field of social work between teachers and lecturers of Zuyd University, HU University and Elte University. Another network joining this project was CARe Europe, an NGO aimed at improving community care throughout Europe. Before the start of the project already HU University, Tallinn Mental Health Centre and Kwintes were participating in this network. In the course of several international meetings (e.g. CARe Europe conference in Prague in 2005, ENSACT conferences in Dubrovnik in 2009, and Brussels in April 2011, ESN conference in Brussels in March 2011), and many local meetings, it became clear that professionals in the social sector have difficulties to change current practices. There is a great need to develop new methods, which professionals can use to create community care.
DOCUMENT
Over the last decade, sport and physical activity have become increasingly recognised and implemented as tools to foster social cohesion in neighbourhoods, cities and communities around Europe. As a result, numerous programmes have emerged that attempt to enhance social cohesion through a variety of sport-based approaches (Moustakas, Sanders, Schlenker, & Robrade, 2021; Svensson & Woods, 2017). However, despite this boom in sport and social cohesion, current definitions and understandings of social cohesion rarely take into account the needs, expectations or views of practitioners, stakeholders and, especially, participants on the ground (Raw, Sherry, & Rowe, 2021). Yet, to truly foster broad social outcomes like social cohesion, there is increasing recognition that programmes must move beyond interventions that only focus on the individual level, and instead find ways to work with and engage a wide array of stakeholders and organisations (Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011; Moustakas, 2022). In turn, this allows programmes to respond to community needs, foster engagement, deliver more sustainable outcomes, and work at both the individual and institutional levels. The Living Lab concept - which is distinguished by multi-stakeholder involvement, user engagement, innovation and co-creation within a real-life setting - provides an innovative approach to help achieve these goals. More formally, Living Labs have been defined as “user-centred, open innovation ecosystems based on a systematic user co-creation approach, integrating research and innovation processes in real-life communities and settings” (European Network of Living Labs, 2021). Thus, this can be a powerful approach to engage a wide array of stakeholders, and create interventions that are responsive to community needs. As such, the Sport for Social Cohesion Lab (SSCL) project was conceived to implement a Living Lab approach within five sport for social cohesion programmes in four different European countries. This approach was chosen to help programmes directly engage programme participants, generate understanding of the elements that promote social cohesion in a sport setting and to co-create activities and tools to explore, support and understand social cohesion within these communities. The following toolkit reflects our multi-national experiences designing and implementing Living Labs across these various contexts. Our partners represent a variety of settings, from schools to community-based organisations, and together these experiences can provide valuable insights to other sport (and non-sport) organisations wishing to implement a Living Lab approach within their contexts and programmes. Thus, practitioners and implementers of community-based programmes should be understood as the immediate target group of this toolkit, though the insights and reflections included here can be of relevance for any individual or organisation seeking to use more participatory approaches within their work. In particular, in the coming sections, this toolkit will define the Living Lab concept more precisely, suggest some steps to launch a Living Lab, and offer insights on how to implement the different components of a Living Lab.
DOCUMENT
Malmö is well known within the field of urban hydrology, as the city was a pioneer in integrated water management (Stahre 2008). In 1998 the Augustenborg neighbourhood was refurbished due to its reoccurring problems with flooding anddamage caused by water (Niemczynowicz 1999). The project “Ekostaden” (Eco-city) included many initiatives implementing nature-based solutions (NBS), such as swales and rain gardens for infiltrating surface (storm) water into the ground (Climate Adapt 2016) (Figure 1). International stakeholders want to know if these NBS still function satisfactorily after 20 years and what we can learn from the “Augustenborg strategy” and apply in other parts of the world. To quote the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, “we learn from history that we do not learn from history.” Augustenborg is an ideal location to demonstratethe sustainability of NBS, test the functionality for infiltration of surface water in swales, map the build-up of potential toxic elements (PTE), and test the water quality after 20 years operation. This evaluation is done in 2019 with theinternational, participatory and multidisciplinary method ‘ClimateCafé and the results are presented at the international seminar Cities, rain and risk,June 2019 in Malmö (Boogaard et al. 2019). ClimateCafé is a field education concept involving different fields of science and practice for capacity building in climate change adaptation. Over 20 ClimateCafés have already been carriedout around the globe (Africa, Asia, Europe), where different tools and methods have been demonstrated to evaluate climate adaptation. The 25th edition of ClimateCafé took place in Malmö, Sweden, in June 2019 and focussed on the Eco-city of Augustenborg. The main research question - “Are the NBS in Augustenborg still functioning satisfactorily?”- was answered by interviews, collecting data of water quality, pollution, NBS and heat stress mapping, and measuring infiltration rates (Boogaard et al. 2020).
DOCUMENT
Our current smart society, where problems and frictions are smoothed out with smart, often invisible technology like AI and smart sensors, calls for designers who unravel and open the smart fabric. Societies are not malleable, and moreover, a smooth society without rough edges is neither desirable nor livable. In this paper we argue for designing friction to enhance a more nuanced debate of smart cities in which conflicting values are better expressed. Based on our experiences with the Moral Design Game, an adversarial design activity, we came to understand the value of creating tangible vessels to highlight conflict and dipartite feelings surrounding smart cities.
LINK
