The Participation of Older People in the Development of Group Housing in The Netherlands: A Study on the Involvement of Residents from Organisational and End-User Perspectives
Abstract
:1. Introduction
“a process by which people are enabled to become actively and genuinely involved in defining issues of concern to them, in making decisions about factors that affect their lives, in formulating and implementing policies, in planning, developing and delivering services and in taking action to achieve change” [31](p.11)
“nothing about us without us!”.
2. Methodology
2.1. Sampling: Respondents and Settings
2.2. Data Collection
2.3. Data Analysis
2.4. Rigour
2.5. Ethical Considerations
3. Results
3.1. Initiation Phase
3.1.1. Involvement from an Early Phase
“This is a very important topic for me: involvement right from the very start. It shouldn’t be like: “OK, we will start with renovation works. Here is the plan, now you can share your feedback”. It is all about involving residents right from the start, about developing the plan together”(Facilitator, Setting A and B)
“During the first meeting, which took place in the building that was going to be renovated, we asked three open questions: (1) How do you want to live when you get older? (2) What do you need in order to do so? (3) What will you do to get there? Residents could write their answers down on sticky notes, and they were stuck onto festival flags that were attached to a big garland. The most important starting point is: What do they <the residents> want? It’s about them.”(Facilitator, Setting A and B)
“[It is a] tabula rasa: We start with an open exploration, and then you’ll see what follows”(Facilitator, Setting A and B)
“I have to say, we built this together. Together, right from the start. And I have to say that you can only conclude that it is ideal, for us, for someone who is older! … Yes, I do feel proud!”(Resident, Setting D)
“Right before the renovation, [the existing building] really looked like a nursing home. So, because I have seen the changes that were made together during the process, I sometimes turn a blind eye for the little things. Those things that people who enter the building after the renovation for the first time really feel irritated about. […] I think the house looks amazing, whereas new people may complain.”(Resident, Setting A)
“In order to get to know people—and I know that sounds easier than it is—I believe you first have to broaden your view and have to do a preliminary investigation so to say. […] By visiting organisations, people, key-figures in the neighbourhood. First, you need to invest in having good relationships and find out who the people really are, and what are their needs. And you need to be aware of diversity. Don’t think you are dealing with a homogeneous group.”(Facilitator, Setting C)
“The first time the organisation hosted a kick-off meeting, almost no-one showed up for the session. That makes you wonder. So, we tried a more radical approach, and put a sign in front of the building saying “Due to a lack of interest: building will be demolished”. The next time we organised the meeting the whole hall was full with people.”(Facilitator, Setting A and B)
3.1.2. Creating a Shared Vision about Participation Together with (Future) Residents
“I would have liked to know beforehand what the process looked like and the general idea behind it. I heard about it, after everything was finished. For this reason, I sometimes lost my interest.”(Resident, Setting A)
3.2. Concepting and Design Phase
3.2.1. Discussing Together in Small Groups
“We see that when we organise a plenary meeting, that no one speaks up, or only a very few people. And then we came up with the idea to form groups of six to eight persons. That really means something for the organisation of the meeting, because you need a moderator for every table. We had three sessions with 100 to 150 people in one day, that means a large number of tables and a huge time investment. So, we wondered if should we really do that? But in the end, it felt right to do it like this and the effort really paid off. So, the next time, we did it again. We want to facilitate as many people as possible to have their say.”(Facilitator, Setting A and B)
“They all have their own apartment, but they also have shared spaces and activities which they need to discuss. Such as, ‘what do we want, and why?’ Because if you don’t discuss these things in advance, it is likely that problems will arise later on. When you discuss this together, in a relaxed and playful manner, then it is often a lot easier than when you discuss it after problems have arisen.”(Facilitator, Setting C)
“Ten people in a group already is too much. Some older people have hearing impairments, so you have to work in small groups so they can hear everything as well.”(Facilitator, Setting A and B)
3.2.2. Seeing Examples of Group Housing
“We saw that the hallways had to be very broad in order to provide enough space, for example, in case someone would need to use a wheelchair in the future…We hadn’t thought of that at all.”(Resident, Setting D)
“At least eight of [these reference sites] we visited in a group of 10 to 12 people. The co-housing facilities were all so different in how they were designed and how the ownership was arranged. […] So that’s how we got insight into what could work for us, what would be our own ideal.”(Facilitator, Setting C)
3.2.3. Using Creative Elements
“It helps you to explore in a more creative way. To use your imagination if I may say so. When making drawings, and seeing the drawings of others… It helps you think outside of the box.”(Resident, Setting D)
“Given my work experience, […] during my working life, well, I attended a lot of meetings. I can hold my own.”(Respondent, Setting B)
“Me? Going to an official meeting? That is something for educated people, and I am not one of them. I will not go to those meetings, too much talking. I do like to be involved in more informal activities, and think about how to create a nice community together.”(Resident, Setting B)
“We are no longer schoolchildren, Ms School Teacher! I need something more challenging.”(Resident, Setting A)
3.2.4. Creating the Right Atmosphere
“For example, how will we live together, how to resolve conflicts? […] When you stroll on the beach together, you have your mind set on the horizon, you feel relaxed. Well, then you talk so easily with each other and you really get to know one another.”(Resident, Setting D)
“With something to drink and eat on the table, I have to say, you quickly get different conversations”.(Resident, Setting B)
3.3. Transition to Living Together
3.3.1. Ownership and Exploring Options and Making Decisions about Living Together
“What comes after that [the concepting and design phase] is often much more complicated. Then you start living together. You start thinking about how you are going to do that and there are many small conflicts because people are people. There are always small troubles. It is about how you want to organise the community, for instance, where are you going to drink coffee together? All those small things that are very big things for those involved, that is what we often discuss.”(Facilitator, Setting A and B)
“This sense of ownership is important. For everything that happens in and around the living community, they feel responsible together as a group. They take care of the community and building accordingly. That is beautiful to see. They act like this is our building.”(Facilitator, Setting D)
“Residents sometimes say to us: you should be doing this or that. However, our response to this question is: what are you going to do, how will you contribute to the community? To raise this awareness is very important. They will have to do it themselves, eventually.”(Facilitator, Setting A and B)
3.3.2. Desired Level of Participation
“Now that the organisation is less actively involved, it [a discussion] becomes really personal more quickly. Deciding everything for ourselves now is at the same time disadvantageous because at the end of the day we have to live together as well.”(Resident, Setting A)
“We wanted to change the front yard. One of the eighty-year-olds, who did not want to be an active member of the workgroup that was responsible, said ‘but you [the members of the workgroup] don’t have a wheeled walker and that information has to be included too’. Then I thought, you have a point. And I said, you know what we will do, every time we have new ideas, we’ll present them to you first and ask your opinions. And they liked this solution.”(Resident, Setting A)
3.3.3. Considering Participation as an Ongoing Process
“During those gatherings in an earlier phase we were really on the same page. That was a nice period. But those gatherings were attended by the people who were planning to live here back then. In this village however, people move quite often. Now there are many new people living here. So, what was created then, is not always applicable anymore.”(Resident, Setting A)
“So, when you move here, you move into an existing frame, both architectural and social. Apartments are 30 square metres, for example. But future generations who come to live here, and I myself already have this need actually, might have different wishes. It should be flexible in a sense, that residents would be able to say this is too small for my liking, why not combine two apartments. Structures, both architectural but also social structures, should be prepared for changes like this and be flexible in this sense.”(Resident, Setting A)
3.4. Preconditions for Facilitating Participation
3.4.1. Trust and Communication
“What you see quite often in larger organisations, is that they sometimes try really hard to include people with a migration background. But what often happens, they treat everyone the same [in a stereotypical manner]. Like ‘we have this ethnic place’, with carpets on the wall, and then they expect people to come. But this is not how it works. You have to build trust. You have to get to know people and their networks.”(Facilitator, Setting C)
“I think it would really make a difference if they would be at our location. Now [name of the social housing association] is just a name. When the organisation would be an actual person, you could ask questions, get answers and discuss things together. Before, everything was very personal, and now it is just a name. And if we don’t like something, we all get angry at the organisation. But when they were here, at our location, it was a person with a name.”(Resident, Setting A)
“I have sent them quite a sharp e-mail. It was not that there was bad communication, there wasn’t even communication! They do not respond to e-mails, yes ‘we are working on it’. Now there is a new employee [contact of the social housing association]. And he contacted me right away. He came to visit me, at our location. The thing was, he took the initiative to come and visit, and took the time to have a look himself. It was fantastic. And when he could not change the situation, it was fine you know, he explains it to us.”(Resident, Setting B)
“In my experience you have to repeat things. And I still have moments that I think, didn’t I already say this three times? And then still residents ask me three times why they never heard this before. That is a recurring issue. Or maybe, you should visualise things more. We are used to working with texts, but now we try to work more with pictures. This works better, and the use of big letters.”(Facilitator, Setting A and B)
3.4.2. Keeping an Open Attitude towards Residents’ Ideas and Preferences
“You don’t know what will be the end result in the beginning. Even do not try to secretly think about the direction you want the project to go beforehand. You have to be brave enough to let your own ideas go. It is not about us as an organisation. Often organisations say it is about the customer. But I would like to say, ok, if that is so, make it happen! And you will see, it will always work out!”(Facilitator, Setting A and B)
“We always have to battle for this within the organisation: “Don’t yet go to the drawing board [to draft a design]!” I do understand that you make calculations to check for feasibility in advance. But in construction, we are used to going directly to the drawing board, [go to] developers, and when designs are done, we still have to start [with the participation of residents]. But the drawings are basically done. A part of the organisation is used to this way of working. Then we have to say: ‘No this is not going to happen!’ Making calculations is fine, as you need to know what your boundary conditions are. But please be careful not to fill in plans!”(Facilitator, Setting A and B)
“We had this situation where people wanted a swimming pool. OK, that’s fine, but it’s not going to happen. Yes, the construction of a swimming pool is possible, but running a swimming pool… that can’t be done. Then we asked “but why do you want a swimming pool?”. And then you learn: they want to go swimming. You might want to go swimming, but that does not mean you actually want a swimming pool in your house. Then you have to think: ok, so how can people find their way to a swimming pool? Otherwise, before you know it, you are the proud owner of a swimming pool.”(Facilitator, Setting A and B)
“You have to be able to walk off the beaten tracks.”(Facilitator, Setting A)
“When you have to bring about change, you have to be more disconnected from structures otherwise there is a risk of being sucked back in by those same structures.”(Facilitator, Setting A and B)
“Don’t underestimate the reaction we received when residents posed the idea of students living in the building. The alarm bells were ringing. [Some colleagues said:] ‘What are you going to do? Renting apartments to students? We are a housing association for older people, we don’t have the experience, that is not even allowed.’ But we were able to back-up this initiative that came from residents themselves, because the estate was ours, it was our responsibility. The team made a plan and this was presented to the director. But we could not be summoned back by the organisation.”(Facilitator, Setting A and B)
4. Discussion
4.1. Lessons Learned about Facilitating Participation in Different Phases
4.2. Comparison of Perspectives of Residents and Facilitators
4.3. The Need for Innovative Approaches in the Domain of Housing for Older People
4.4. Strengths and Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Questionnaire for Residents
- Can you tell us a little more about the development of X?
- What was the role of residents in this? What was your role in this?
- How did you become involved in this process (options include: registered, requested, proposed)?
- Can you tell me how this process went?
- At what points in the development were residents involved?
- What topics was that about?
- Can you tell us a little more about how you and other residents were involved? In what ways did that happen? (Did you also have a say in the method itself, when/how the participation took place?)
- What do you and other residents think are the advantages of this method/these methods? Do you have an example of something that worked well, for instance? Why do you think that was the case?
- What do you and other residents think are the disadvantages of this method/these methods? Do you have an example of something that worked less well? Why do you think that was the case? (Has a solution been found?) Or what could help in that?
- In order for this method to work properly, what do you think is needed from the organisation? Why? What else?
- In order for this method to work properly, what do you think is needed from residents? Why? What else?
- How much were you able to contribute to the process? Was that just your own opinion or also the opinion of others, such as neighbours, who did not participate in the process? Could everyone join in? If not, who could? Who couldn’t?
- Can you tell us a bit more about the composition of the group of people who participated, in terms of age and educational background?
- If there were people who couldn’t/didn’t want to participate, what do you think was the reason for that? Do you think there were ways to get these people involved?
- How did X generally respond to the ideas of residents? How was the result of an idea communicated to you?
- Do you have examples of ideas from you or other residents and what was done with them? How did that go?
- Do you have examples of ideas from you or other residents where you felt that less was done with them? How did that go? Why do you think that was the case?
- If residents disagreed with decisions made by the organisation, how did they respond? What feedback did the residents get?
- At what times or about what topics would you like the organisation to make the final decision? Certain times in the process?/Certain topics? Why? Examples?
- When would you like to have more say? Certain times in the process?/Certain topics? Why? Examples?
- Looking back, what expectations did you have beforehand about participating in the development of X?
- At the start of the process, how did X communicate about the participation of residents, how this would take place and what would be done with it?
- What has the input of residents yielded? (And what was your role in that?)
- What are the results of the participation, the input of residents, for (1) House X? (2) And for residents? (3) And for yourself (physically, emotionally (such as pride or satisfaction))? (4) Organisation?
- In order to ensure the participation of residents, what is needed from the organisation?
- In order to achieve the participation of residents, what is needed from the residents themselves?
- Based on your experience with the participation of residents, what would you advise organisations X to get as much out of the participation as possible? Why?
- Age.
- Highest level of education.
Appendix B. Questionnaire for Facilitators
- What is your role in the process of the development of house X and the contact with (future) residents?
- Can you tell us more about how the participation of residents or future residents has been/will be organised in the development of house X? Who’s involved in this? How did these people get involved? What contact moments are there? Why? What topics are covered? What fixed structures are there? (How) is this embedded in the organisation?
- You indicate that … Can you say more about the ways in which this is done?
- Why have these ways/methods been chosen?
- What do you and others involved think are the advantages of this method/these methods? Do you have an example of what works well, for instance? Why do you think that is the case?
- What do you and others involved think are the disadvantages of this method/these methods? Do you have an example of what worked less well? Why do you think that is the case?
- When organising this, what do you have to pay attention to? Why? Examples?
- When implementing this, what do you have to pay attention to? Why? Examples?
- In order for this to work properly, what do you think is necessary from the organisation X and staff members? Why is that? What else?
- In order for this to work properly, what do you think is needed from the residents themselves? Why is that? What else?
- Can everyone participate? Who can? Who can’t? Who does/doesn’t this method work for? Do you have examples of this?
- Based on your experiences with method X, what learning moments about facilitating the participation of residents have you experienced?
- (If applicable) If you look at the application of method X in different living groups, what differences do you see? Why do you think that is the case?
- Do you have examples of situations where residents came up with something that was surprising to you or the other partners? How did that go? What happened to it? What was communicated to residents?
- Do you have examples of situations in which residents wanted something that you had different ideas about based on your experience, or might that not be possible? How did that go? What did you do with it? What was communicated to the residents?
- In what situations do you think something should be done with what the residents suggested? Are there limits to the wishes/involvement of residents? By whom/what are the boundaries determined? Examples?
- In what situations do you think something should be done with what the professionals suggest? Do you have an example of this?
- Looking back, what expectations did you have beforehand about involving residents?
- What has the input of residents yielded?
- What are the results of the participation for (1) House X? (2) And for residents? (3) Organisation?
- In order to enable residents to participate, what do you think the organisation and staff members need to do? What is needed to facilitate this?
- In order to achieve the participation of residents, what is needed from the residents themselves?
- Based on your experience with the participation of residents, where do you think there are still opportunities for improvement for organisation X?
- Based on your experience with the participation of residents, what advice would you give to other organisations so that resident participation will be as useful as possible? What should they do, and what should they avoid doing? And why?
- Age.
- Highest level of education.
Appendix C. Instructions for Focus Group
- Could you please introduce yourself and tell us briefly about how you became involved with the residents’ consultation about this form of housing? When did you become involved and what were you involved with? (Which theme or themes were you involved with when you told us what you would most like to see in this form of housing?).
- We would like to zoom in a little more on the various phases, from the construction to the current situation. Looking back, what were the success factors during the construction—allow them to describe how they understand this—which enabled it to go well? And were there any inconvenient points which when you look back make you think we could have done things differently? When you look at the current situation, what is going well with the residents’ consultation? In which phases was there still room for improvement? Where relevant, what do you think could still be improved?
- Do you now have the impression that everyone who wants to participate is also able to participate? Explanation: If so, why? If not, how can this be improved? What do residents have to be attentive to? How can the organisation facilitate this?
- Question about this specific case: It takes a long time to look for and build housing. How can you now make sure that older people remain involved with this? What do you think is important here? What has been done with the public consultation? What were the effects/results? How do people perceive that something is being done with your wishes/opinion? How? When?
- Question for discussion: finally, what advice do you have for other organisations who want to get residents involved with planning a new form of housing for older people? What are the lessons that you would like to pass on to others?
- Does the assistant have any further questions? The assistant may ask up to two more short questions.
- Wrapping up: Is there anything we have missed? Is there a point that we have not yet addressed? Summary of the most important points. Information about sharing the results. Thank the participants, opportunity to stay and have a talk afterwards.
References
- Kazak, J.K.; van Hoof, J.; Świąder, M.; Szewrański, S. Real Estate for the Ageing Society—The Perspective of a New Market. Real Estate Manag. Valuat. 2017, 25, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rusinovic, K.M.; van Bochove, M.E.; Koops-Boelaars, S.; Tavy, Z.K.C.T.; van Hoof, J. Towards Responsible Rebellion: How Founders Deal with Challenges in Establishing and Governing Innovative Living Arrangements for Older People. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rusinovic, K.; van Bochove, M.; van de Sande, J. Senior Co-Housing in the Netherlands: Benefits and Drawbacks for Its Residents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bamford, G. Cohousing for older people: Housing innovation in the Netherlands and Denmark. Aust. J. Ageing 2005, 24, 44–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Choi, J.S. Evaluation of Community Planning and Life of Senior Cohousing Pojects in Northern European Countries. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2004, 12, 1189–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hammond, M. Spatial Agency: Creating New Opportunities for Sharing and Collaboration in Older People’s Cohousing. Urban Sci. 2018, 2, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Monton, P.; Reyes, L.E.; Alcover, C.-M. Personal Characteristics for Successful Senior Cohousing: A Proposed Theoretical Model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cummings, S.; Kropf, N.P. Senior Cohousing: A New Way Forward for Active Older Adults; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Durrett, C. The Senior Cohousing Handbook. A Community Approach to Independent Living, 2nd ed.; New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, BC, Canada, 2009; ISBN 9780865716117. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Programma Langer Thuis. Available online: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2018/06/15/programma-langer-thuis (accessed on 20 January 2022).
- Van Hoof, J.; Marston, H.R.; Kazak, J.K.; Buffel, T. Ten Questions Concerning Age-Friendly Cities & Communities and the Built Environment. Build. Environ. 2021, 199, 107922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brookfield, K.; Scott, I.; Tinker, A.; Ward Thompson, C. Perspectives on “Novel” Techniques for Designing Age-Friendly Homes and Neighborhoods with Older Adults. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kort, H.S.M.; Steunenberg, B.; van Hoof, J. Methods for Involving People Living with Dementia and Their Informal Carers as Co-Developers of Technological Solutions. Dement. Geriatr. Cogn. Disord. 2019, 47, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Mannheim, I.; Schwartz, E.; Xi, W.; Buttigieg, S.C.; McDonnell-Naughton, M.; Wouters, E.J.M.; van Zaalen, Y. Inclusion of Older Adults in the Research and Design of Digital Technology. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Boerenfijn, P.; Kazak, J.K.; Schellen, L.; van Hoof, J. A multi-case study of innovations in energy performance of social housing for older adults in the Netherlands. Energy Build. 2018, 158, 1762–1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Hoof, J.; Boerenfijn, P. Re-Inventing Existing Real Estate of Social Housing for Older People: Building a New De Benring in Voorst, The Netherlands. Buildings 2018, 8, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boerenfijn, P. Never waste a good crisis: How local communities successfully re-invent aged care facilities in the Netherlands. Gerontechnology 2017, 16, 239–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Von Faber, M.; Tavy, Z.; van der Pas, S. Engaging Older People in Age-Friendly Cities through Participatory Video Design. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Hoof, J.; Verkerk, M.J. Developing an Integrated Design Model Incorporating Technology Philosophy for the Design of Healthcare Environments: A Case Analysis of Facilities for Psychogeriatric and Psychiatric Care in The Netherlands. Technol. Soc. 2013, 35, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Hoof, J.; Rutten, P.G.S.; Struck, C.; Huisman, E.R.C.M.; Kort, H.S.M. The integrated and evidence-based design of healthcare environments. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2015, 11, 243–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- van Hoof, J.; Rusinovic, K.M.; Tavy, Z.K.C.T.; van den Hoven, R.F.M.; Dikken, J.; van der Pas, S.; Kruize, H.; de Bruin, S.R.; van Bochove, M. The Participation of Older People in the Concept and Design Phases of Housing in The Netherlands: A Theoretical Overview. Healthcare 2021, 9, 301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rémillard-Boilard, S.; Buffel, T.; Phillipson, C. Involving older residents in age-friendly developments: From information to co-production mechanisms. J. Hous. Elder. 2018, 31, 146–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walsh, K.; Scharf, T.; van Regenmortel, S.; Wanka, A. (Eds.) Social Exclusion in Later Life. Interdisciplinary and Policy Perspectives; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Boer, B.; Bozdemir, B.; Jansen, J.; Hermans, M.; Hamers, J.P.H.; Verbeek, H. The Homestead: Developing a Conceptual Framework through Co-Creation for Innovating Long-Term Dementia Care Environments. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Buffel, T. Older coresearchers exploring age-friendly communities: An “insider” perspective on the benefits and challenges of peer-research. Gerontologist 2019, 59, 538–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Buffel, T.; Rémillard-Boilard, S.; Walsh, K.; McDonald, B.; de Donder, L. Age-Friendly approaches and old-age exclusion: A cross-city analysis. Int. J. Ageing Later Life 2020, 14, 89–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Östlund, B.; Fischer, B.; Marshall, B.; Dalmer, N.; Fernandez-Ardévol, M.; Garcia-Santesmases, A.; Lopez, D.; Loos, E.; Chang, F.; Chen, X.; et al. Using Academic Work Places to Involve Older People in the Design of Digital Applications. Presentation of a Methodological Framework to Advance Co-Design in Later Life. In Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Technologies, Design and User Experience; Gao, Q., Zhou, J., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 45–58. [Google Scholar]
- Fischer, B.; Östlund, B.; Dalmer, N.K.; Rosales, A.; Peine, A.; Loos, E.; Neven, L.; Marshall, B. Co-Design as Learning: The Differences of Learning When Involving Older People in Digitalization in Four Countries. Societies 2021, 11, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanoff, H. Multiple views of participatory design. Focus 2011, 8, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fischer, B.; Östlund, B. Design multiple: How different configurations of participation matter in design practice. Des. Stud. 2021, 74, 101016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. Creating Age-Friendly Environments in Europe. A Tool for Local Policy-Makers and Planners; WHO Regional Office for Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2016.
- Teunissen, G.J.; Abma, T.A. Derde partij: Tussen droom en daad. TVGW 2010, 88, 182–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Creighton, J.L. The Public Participation Handbook; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Ogryzek, M.; Krupowicz, W.; Sajnóg, N. Public Participation as a Tool for Solving Socio-Spatial Conflicts of Smart Cities and Smart Villages in the Sustainable Transport System. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 4821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, H.S.; Prosperi, D.C. Citizen Participation and Internet GIS—Some Recent Advances. Ed. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2005, 29, 617–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanzl, M. Information technology as a tool for public participation in urban planning: A review of experiments and potentials. Des. Stud. 2007, 28, 289–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. The Aarhus Convention: An Implementation Guide; United Nations Economic Commission for Europe: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.
- United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Maastricht Recommendations on Promoting Effective Public Participation in Decision-Making in Environmental Matters Prepared under the Aarhus Convention; United Nations Economic Commission for Europe: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
- Rijksoverheid. Wetsvoorstel Versterking Participatie op Decentraal Niveau Voor Advies Naar Raad van State. Available online: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2020/06/05/wetsvoorstel-versterking-participatie-op-decentraal-niveau-voor-advies-naar-raad-van-state (accessed on 18 December 2021).
- Verheul, W.J.; Heurkens, E.; Hobma, F. Participatie Georganiseerd Door Private Partijen—Nieuwe Verhoudingen in Omgevingsparticipatie; Programma Stedelijke Transformatie/Platform 31: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Soeterbroek, F. Omgevingswet Bezorgt Buurtbewoners Nog Meer Buikpijn. Sociale Vraagstukken. Available online: http://www.socialevraagstukken.nl/omgevingswet-bezorgt-buurtbewoners-nog-meer-buikpijn (accessed on 18 December 2021).
- Arnstein, S.R. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 1969, 35, 216–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ulbig, S.G. Voice is not enough: The importance of influence in political trust and political assessments. Public Opin. Q. 2008, 72, 523–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dedding, C.; Slager, M. (Eds.) De Rafels van Participatie in de Gezondheidszorg: Van Participerende Patiënt Naar Participerende Omgeving; Boom Lemma Uitgevers: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- CSO. Acht Keer Samenwerken. Ouderen en Onderzoekers over Participatie in Projecten. 2012. Available online: https://www.beteroud.nl/docs/beteroud/ouderenparticipatie/acht-keer-samenwerken-ouderen.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2021).
- CSO. Zorgbelang Nederland. Succesfactoren Ouderenparticipatie. 2012. Available online: https://www.beteroud.nl/docs/beteroud/ouderenparticipatie/succesfactoren-ouderenparticipatie.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2021).
- Palinkas, L.A.; Korwitz, S.M.; Green, C.A.; Wisdom, J.P.; Duan, N.; Hoagwood, K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm. Policy Ment. Health 2015, 42, 533–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Naderifar, M.; Goli, H.; Ghaljaie, F. Snowball Sampling: A Purposeful Method of Sampling in Qualitative Research. Strides Dev. Med. Educ. 2017, 14, e67670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Woodley, X.; Lockard, M. Womanism and snowball sampling: Engaging marginalized populations in holistic research. Qual. Rep. 2016, 21, 321–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Hoof, J.; Kort, H.S.M.; van Waarde, H. Housing and care for older adults with dementia. A European perspective. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2009, 24, 369–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Bochove, M.; Rusinovic, K.; Koops-Boelaars, S.; van Hoof, J. ‘We gaan het gewoon doen’. Rebelse initiatieven in onderwijs en ouderenhuisvesting. Beleid Maatsch. 2021, 48, 174–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Statistics Netherlands. Hoeveel Inwoners Zijn in Het Buitenland Geboren? 2022. Available online: https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/dossier/dossier-asiel-migratie-en-integratie/hoeveel-inwoners-zijn-in-het-buitenland-geboren- (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- Tavory, I.; Timmermans, S. Abductive Analysis: Theorizing Qualitative Research; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Harvey, L. Beyond member-checking: A dialogic approach to the research interview. Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 2014, 38, 23–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montreuil, M.; Martineau, J.T.; Racine, E. Exploring Ethical Issues Related to Patient Engagement in Healthcare: Patient, Clinician and Researcher’s Perspectives. J. Bioethical Inq. 2019, 16, 237–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Machielse, A.; Bos, P.; Vaart, W.; van der Thoolen, E. Experiment Vitale Woongemeenschappen; Research Report; Platform 31: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Trappenburg, M.; Schillemans, T.; van de Bovenkamp, H. Cliëntenraden en Klantenfora. In Handboek Publieke Verantwoording; Bovens, M., Schillemans, T., Eds.; Boom Lemma Uitgevers: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 181–204. [Google Scholar]
- Schrevel, S.; Slager, M.; de Vlugt, E. “I Stood by and Watched”: An Autoethnography of Stakeholder Participation in a Living Lab. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2020, 10, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Bovenkamp, H.; Vollaard, H.; Trappenburg, M.; Grit, K. Voice and choice by delegation. J. Health Politics Policy Law 2013, 38, 57–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vossen, C.; Slager, M.; Wilbrink, N.; Roetman, A. Handboek Participatie Voor Ouderen in Zorg—En Welzijnsprojecten; CSO: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- PGO Support. De Participatieladder voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek. 2019. Available online: https://participatiekompas.nl/de-participatieladder-voor-wetenschappelijk-onderzoek (accessed on 20 December 2021).
- Van de Bovenkamp, H.M.; Trappenburg, M.J. Reconsidering patient participation in guideline development. Health Care Anal. 2009, 17, 198–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Baur, V.; Abma, T. ‘The Taste Buddies’: Participation and empowerment in a residential home for older people. Ageing Soc. 2012, 32, 1055–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bagchus, C.; Dedding, C.; Bunders, J.F.G. ‘I’m happy that I can still walk’—Participation of the elderly in home care as a specific group with specific needs and wishes. Health Expect. 2015, 18, 2183–2191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- James, H.; Buffel, T. Co-research with older people: A systematic literature review. Ageing Soc. 2022, 44, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- PGO Support. Participatiekompas. Available online: https://participatiekompas.nl (accessed on 20 December 2021).
- Hupmobile. Participatory.Tools Tool-KIT. Available online: http://participatory.tools/tool-kit (accessed on 18 December 2021).
- Goedhart, N.S.; Pittens, C.A.C.M.; Tončinić, S.; Zuiderent-Jerak, T.; Dedding, C.; Broerse, J.E.W. Engaging citizens living in vulnerable circumstances in research: A narrative review using a systematic search. Res. Involv. Engag. 2021, 7, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sleeswijk Visser, F. My Futures: How do People Deal with Their Future? In My Futures: The Future is Plural; Sleeswijk Visser, F., Ernst, E., Eds.; Delft University of Technology: Delft, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 10–17. [Google Scholar]
- De Graaff, B.; Kleinhout-Vliek, T.; van de Bovenkamp, H. In the works: Patient and public involvement and engagement in healthcare decision-making. Health Expect. 2021, 24, 1903–1904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Groot, B.C.; Abma, T.A. Participatory Health Research with Older People in the Netherlands: Navigating Power. In Participatory Health Research; Wright, M.T., Kongats, K., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 165–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bailey, C.; Aitken, D.; Wilson, G.; Hodgson, P.; Douglas, B.; Docking, R. “What? That’s for Old People, that.” Home Adaptations, Ageing and Stigmatisation: A Qualitative Inquiry. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Heylighen, A.; van der Linden, V.; van Steenwinkel, I. Ten questions concerning inclusive design of the built environment. Build. Environ. 2017, 114, 507–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Hoof, J.; Blom, M.M.; Post, H.N.A.; Bastein, W.L. Designing a ‘think-along dwelling’ for people with dementia: A co-creation project between health care and the building services sector. J. Hous. Elder. 2013, 27, 299–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eijkelenboom, A.; Verbeek, H.; Felix, E.; van Hoof, J. The architectural factors influencing the sense of home in nursing homes: An operationalization for practice. Front. Arch. Res. 2017, 6, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ly, S.; Runacres, F.; Poon, P. Journey mapping as a novel approach to healthcare: A qualitative mixed methods study in palliative care. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2021, 21, 915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Participant | Age-Range (Years) | Data Collection Type | Position | Setting (s) |
---|---|---|---|---|
01 | 55–59 | Interview | Director, social housing association | A&B |
02 | 50–54 | Interview | Staff member social housing association | A |
03 | 55–59 | Interview | Staff member social housing association | A&B |
04 | 55–59 | Interview | Initiator housing initiative | C |
05 | 55–59 | Interview | Staff member social housing association | D |
06 | 50–54 | Interview | Staff member social housing association | A&B |
07 | 70–74 | Interview | Resident | A |
08 | 80–84 | Interview | Resident | A |
09 | 25–29 | Interview | Resident | A |
10 | 25–29 | Interview | Resident | A |
11 | 55–59 | Interview | Resident | A |
12 | 80–84 | Focus group 1 | Resident | A |
13 | 80–84 | Focus group 1 | Resident | A |
14 | 65–69 | Focus group 1 | Resident | A |
15 | 65–69 | Focus group 1 | Resident | A |
16 | 65–69 | Interview | Resident | B |
17 | 80–84 | Interview | Resident | B |
18 | 75–79 | Interview | Resident | B |
19 | 85–89 | Interview | Resident | B |
20 | 55–59 | Interview | Resident | B |
21 | 70–74 | Interview | Resident | D |
22 | 70–74 | Interview | Resident | D |
23 | 80–84 | Interview & Focus group 2 | Resident | D |
24 | 85–89 | Interview & Focus group 2 | Resident | D |
25 | 70–74 | Focus group 2 | Resident | D |
26 | 75–79 | Focus group 2 | Resident | D |
27 | 70–74 | Focus group 3 | Resident | C |
28 | 65–69 | Focus group 3 | Resident | C |
29 | 70–74 | Focus group 3 | Resident | C |
30 | 70–74 | Focus group 3 | Resident | C |
31 | 70–74 | Focus group 3 | Resident | C |
32 | 70–74 | Focus group 3 | Resident | C |
33 | 65–69 | Focus group 3 | Resident | C |
34 | 80–84 | Focus group 3 | Resident | C |
Methods for Participation | Value According to Facilitators 1 | Value According to Residents 1 |
---|---|---|
Discussions in small groups (see Section 3.2.1.) | 🗹🗹🗹 | 🗹🗹🗹 |
Visiting established collective forms of housing (see Section 3.2.2.) | 🗹🗹🗹 | 🗹🗹🗹 |
Creative sessions (drawing, building blocks, or making pictures of living environments) (see Section 3.2.3.) | 🗹🗹🗹 | 🗹🗹🗹 ⌧ |
Informal walk-in meetings | 🗹🗹🗹 | 🗹🗹 |
Committees or workgroups | 🗹🗹 | 🗹🗹🗹 |
Following courses on how to create a community and live together | 🗹🗹 | 🗹🗹 |
Informal conversations | 🗹🗹 | 🗹🗹 ⌧ |
Questionnaires | 🗹 ⌧ | 🗹 ⌧ |
Individual interviews | 🗹 ⌧ | 🗹 ⌧ |
Information sessions with large groups together | 🗹 ⌧⌧⌧ | 🗹 ⌧⌧⌧ |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tavy, Z.K.C.T.; van Bochove, M.E.; Dikken, J.; von Faber, M.; Rusinovic, K.M.; van der Pas, S.; van Hoof, J. The Participation of Older People in the Development of Group Housing in The Netherlands: A Study on the Involvement of Residents from Organisational and End-User Perspectives. Buildings 2022, 12, 367. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12030367
Tavy ZKCT, van Bochove ME, Dikken J, von Faber M, Rusinovic KM, van der Pas S, van Hoof J. The Participation of Older People in the Development of Group Housing in The Netherlands: A Study on the Involvement of Residents from Organisational and End-User Perspectives. Buildings. 2022; 12(3):367. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12030367
Chicago/Turabian StyleTavy, Zsuzsu K. C. T., Marianne E. van Bochove, Jeroen Dikken, Margaret von Faber, Katja M. Rusinovic, Suzan van der Pas, and Joost van Hoof. 2022. "The Participation of Older People in the Development of Group Housing in The Netherlands: A Study on the Involvement of Residents from Organisational and End-User Perspectives" Buildings 12, no. 3: 367. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12030367
APA StyleTavy, Z. K. C. T., van Bochove, M. E., Dikken, J., von Faber, M., Rusinovic, K. M., van der Pas, S., & van Hoof, J. (2022). The Participation of Older People in the Development of Group Housing in The Netherlands: A Study on the Involvement of Residents from Organisational and End-User Perspectives. Buildings, 12(3), 367. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12030367