Making socio-spatial knowledge explicit in architectural interpretation: a framework for neighbourhood-scale housing

Explicitando o conhecimento socioespacial na interpretação arquitetônica: um framework para habitação na escala da vizinhança

Abstract

This study addresses the challenge of operationalising socio-spatial knowledge in architectural interpretation. Although Environment–Behaviour Studies provide empirical evidence on relationships between spatial configuration, everyday practices, and socio-spatial effects, this knowledge is typically reported as context-specific findings and lacks an explicit structure for interpretative use. Adopting a Design Science Research approach, the study develops a method-oriented artefact comprising an analytical–operational framework that reorganises existing evidence into a structured inferential system. The framework is constructed by synthesising empirical associations into relational units, consolidating them into relational structures, and incorporating patterns from A Pattern Language as heuristic references for interpretative qualification through spatial analogy. The framework is operationalised through analytical sheets and demonstrated by an analysis of a cohousing site plan. The study contributes by making the inferential logic of architectural interpretation explicit and operationalisable, enabling the structured mobilisation of socio-spatial knowledge without assuming deterministic relationships between spatial configuration and socio-spatial effects.

Keywords
Architectural interpretation; Socio-spatial knowledge; Spatial configuration; Environment–Behaviour Studies; Design Science Research

Resumo

Este estudo aborda o desafio de operacionalizar o conhecimento socioespacial na interpretação arquitetônica. Embora os Estudos Ambiente–Comportamento ofereçam evidências empíricas sobre as relações entre a configuração espacial, as práticas cotidianas e os efeitos socioespaciais, esse conhecimento é tipicamente apresentado como resultados situados e carece de uma estrutura explícita para fins interpretativos. Adotando a abordagem de Design Science Research, o estudo desenvolve um artefato orientado a métodos, constituído por um quadro analítico-operacional que reorganiza evidências existentes em um sistema inferencial estruturado. O quadro é construído por meio da síntese de associações empíricas em unidades relacionais, de sua consolidação em estruturas relacionais e da incorporação de padrões de Uma Linguagem de Padrões como referências heurísticas para qualificação interpretativa por analogia espacial. O quadro é operacionalizado por meio de fichas analíticas e demonstrado por meio da análise de uma planta de implantação de cohousing. O estudo contribui para tornar explícita e operacionalizável a lógica inferencial da interpretação arquitetônica, permitindo a mobilização estruturada do conhecimento socioespacial, sem pressupor relações determinísticas entre a configuração espacial e os efeitos socioespaciais.

Palavras-chave
Interpretação arquitetônica; Conhecimento socioespacial; Configuração espacial; Estudos Ambiente–Comportamento; Design Science Research

1 Introduction

Interdisciplinary research in architecture, urban design, and environmental psychology has produced a substantial body of empirical evidence linking spatial configurations to everyday practices and socio-spatial effects. Within Environment–Behaviour Studies (EBS), Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE), and Evidence-Based Design (EBD), attributes such as visibility, proximity, and permeability have been associated with recurring spatial–behavioural regularities, social interaction, co-presence, and environmental perception, with implications for human well-being and the quality of the built environment (Whyte, 1980; Gehl, 1987; Kaplan; Kaplan, 1989; Rapoport, 1977, 2008; Preiser; Rabinowitz; White, 2015).

Despite the consolidation of this body of knowledge, its use in interpreting architectural representations remains limited. Reading plans, sections, and elevations involves inferring uses and experiences from spatial configurations. However, this reasoning tends to remain implicit, relying on tacit knowledge and the analyst’s situated judgement (Schön, 1983; Cross, 2001; Lawson, 2005). Studies of design cognition indicate that reading representations involves dynamic inferential processes in which the observer constructs interpretations from spatial cues and prior repertoires (Goldschmidt, 1991; Suwa; Tversky, 1997). As a result, the socio-spatial implications of spatial solutions are often formulated implicitly, making them difficult to communicate, compare, and critically evaluate (Kowaltowski et al., 2008; Souza; Kowaltowski; Woolner, 2020; Cabrera; Hirota; Codinhoto, 2025).

This limitation stems not from a lack of evidence, but from the absence of explicit procedures for translating dispersed socio-spatial findings into structured inferential operations applicable to architectural representations. Relationships among spatial configuration, everyday practices, and socio-spatial effects are often presented in a dispersed, context-dependent manner and are not structured as explicit, transferable inferential procedures. As noted by Zeisel (2006) and Groat and Wang (2013), translating environment–behaviour knowledge into analytical support for design remains a recurring challenge. Accordingly, the difficulty of incorporating EBS evidence into design analysis and decision-making has been recognised as a persistent gap in the field (Horayangkura, 2012).

In this context, this study adopts a Design Science Research (DSR) approach to develop an analytical framework for the socio-spatial interpretation of architectural representations, particularly plans and sections. The study develops a method-oriented artefact. Within this paper, the framework corresponds to its core analytical–operational structure, while its instantiation is represented through analytical sheets. Accordingly, the study focuses on developing this analytical structure, which constitutes the core of the artefact, rather than presenting a fully validated artefact.

The framework reorganises empirical evidence from the literature through three components:

1. relational units, which articulate associations among spatial configuration, everyday practices, and socio-spatial effects;

2. analytical spatial categories, which guide the identification and delineation of configurations in architectural representations; and

3. heuristic references, mobilised to complement interpretation by recognising spatial analogies.

These components are articulated through a structured inferential procedure that makes the sequence linking observation, evidential association, and interpretative formulation explicit, traceable, and communicable.

In this sense, the framework operates as a mediating structure between the evidence available in the environment–behaviour field and the interpretation of architectural representations. The relationships considered are not treated as original empirical findings or design prescriptions, but as associations previously reported in the literature reorganised into an analytical structure.

To this end, the study focuses on the small-neighbourhood scale, using cohousing as a demonstration domain. This choice does not restrict the framework to this typology; rather, it reflects a methodological strategy. Cohousing communities offer high socio-spatial legibility, characterised by strong relationships among spatial configuration, everyday practices, and socio-spatial effects, as widely documented in the literature (Marcus, 2000; Fromm, 2000; McCamant; Durrett, 2011; Felstead; Thwaites; Simpson, 2019; Felstead; Thwaites, 2023). This context makes the framework’s functioning clearer by highlighting relationships that are more diffuse in other housing contexts.

The main contribution of this study is a framework that reorganises existing socio-spatial knowledge into a form applicable to architectural interpretation. Specifically, the study:

1. structures evidence reported in the literature into relational units usable in architectural analysis;

2. makes explicit the linkage between spatial configuration, everyday practices, and socio-spatial effects within the interpretative process; and

3. establishes a methodological distinction between evidence-based inference and heuristic interpretative qualification.

This contribution is incremental, focusing on the operationalisation of existing knowledge rather than the generation of new empirical relationships. Its novelty lies in making the inferential articulation between spatial configuration, everyday practices, and socio-spatial effects explicit and analytically usable, thereby defining a method-oriented artefact that structures how socio-spatial evidence can be mobilised in architectural interpretation.

2 Theoretical–conceptual framework

2.1 Socio-spatial knowledge and architectural interpretation

The field of EBS has produced a consolidated body of evidence linking spatial attributes to everyday practices and socio-spatial effects, providing an empirical basis for understanding interactions between space and experience (Canter, 1977; Rapoport, 1977, 2008; Gehl, 2010; Hillier; Hanson, 1984; Hillier, 1996). This body of knowledge has been further developed through approaches such as POE (Zimring; Reizenstein, 1980; Preiser; Rabinowitz; White, 2015) and EBD (Ulrich et al., 2008; Hamilton; Watkins, 2009; Luo; Marchi; Gaspari, 2025), which systematise evidence on the socio-spatial performance of the built environment.

Despite these advances, the way this evidence is presented often limits its use in analytical processes. Relationships between spatial configuration, practices, and effects are typically context-dependent and mediated by social, cultural, and operational factors (Rapoport, 1977, 2008; Hillier, 1996; Luo; Marchi; Gaspari, 2025). In addition, they are frequently reported as isolated associations, making it difficult to articulate them within broader analytical frameworks.

In this context, architectural interpretation can be understood as an inferential process linking observations of spatial configurations to available socio-spatial knowledge. As discussed by Schön (1983), Lawson and Dorst (2009), and Groat and Wang (2013), this process depends on situated judgement and prior repertoires. Studies in design cognition further indicate that reading representations involves constructing interpretations from spatial cues (Goldschmidt, 1991; Suwa; Tversky, 1997). However, the absence of explicit structures to support this inferential linkage limits its traceability and communicability.

Different approaches have contributed to the analysis of the built environment. Comparative plan analysis, based on POE data, enables the examination of relationships between spatial configurations and empirical evidence of use (Van der Voordt; Vrielink; Van Wegen, 1997). Space Syntax models configurational relationships and movement patterns through spatial metrics (Hillier; Hanson, 1984; Hillier, 1996), as do simulation-based methods that analyse behaviour in built environments (Yan; Kalay, 2005). While these approaches enhance the capacity to analyse and model spatial performance, they do not explicitly articulate the inferential link among spatial configuration, practices, and effects in the interpretation of architectural representations.

This highlights the need for explicit inferential structures that reorganise socio-spatial knowledge into analytically usable forms. Such structures should enable the articulation of relationships among spatial configuration, practices, and effects in a clear and traceable way, while preserving their contextual character. In this sense, the operationalisation of socio-spatial knowledge in architectural interpretation depends on reorganising existing evidence into analytical devices that support inferential reasoning in design analysis.

2.2 Patterns as heuristic references for the qualification of interpretation

In design theory, relationships between spatial configuration, use, and experience have been systematised through the concept of patterns, as presented in A Pattern Language (Alexander; Ishikawa; Silverstein, 1977) and further developed within a design tradition that understands the built environment as a relational system (Alexander, 1965, 1979, 2004, 2023a, 2023b; Davis, 2008). Patterns describe recurrent spatial situations from a design perspective, linking contexts, problems, and spatial configurations to experiential qualities.

This approach is grounded in the understanding that complex spatial systems are organised as networks of relationships rather than simple hierarchical structures (Alexander, 1965), emphasising the interdependence between spatial configuration and social life. In this sense, patterns represent a form of design knowledge that makes relationships between space and experience more legible in configurational terms (Barros; Pina, 2010; 2012; Kowaltowski; Gonçalves; Cleveland, 2024).

However, patterns differ from the evidence produced within the environment–behaviour field, as their formulation is not necessarily based on systematically generated empirical data and may involve design synthesis and generalisation (Protzen, 1978; Dovey, 1990; Dawes; Ostwald, 2017; Angel; Salingaros, 2022). For this reason, in this study, patterns are not used to establish socio-spatial relationships, which remain grounded in evidence reorganised from the literature.

Instead, patterns are mobilised as heuristic references in a subsequent stage of the analytical process. Their role is to support interpretation by identifying spatial analogies with recurrent situations described in the design literature, helping to articulate the experiential dimensions associated with the analysed configurations. In this context, they do not generate or validate relationships between spatial configuration, practices, and socio-spatial effects.

Thus, patterns are understood as resources for interpretative exploration rather than as design prescriptions or causal explanations. This approach establishes two complementary levels within the analytical process:

1. evidence-based inference, grounded in relationships among spatial configuration, practices, and effects; and

2. heuristic interpretative qualification, in which patterns extend interpretation without altering the epistemic status of evidence-based inferences.

3 Method

This study adopts a Design Science Research (DSR) approach (Hevner et al., 2004; Peffers et al., 2007) to address a specific operational gap in architectural analysis: the absence of explicit procedures for translating dispersed socio-spatial evidence into structured, traceable interpretative inferences applicable to architectural representations.

Although EBS provide a substantial body of empirical knowledge linking spatial configuration, everyday practices, and socio-spatial effects, these relationships are typically reported as context-dependent findings and are not organised as transferable analytical procedures. As a result, their use in interpreting plans and sections remains largely implicit and dependent on individual judgement.

From a DSR perspective, the study develops a method-oriented artefact designed to operationalise this translation. The artefact comprises three integrated components:

1. a conceptual framework that organises the relationships between spatial configuration, everyday practices, and socio-spatial effects;

2. an analytical procedure that structures evidential and heuristic inference; and

3. an instantiation device, operationalised through analytical sheets, that enables the application of the method in practice.

Within the DSR cycle, this paper addresses the artefact's design and demonstration stages. Its contribution lies in making explicit the internal analytical logic that links empirical evidence to interpretative reasoning. The study does not aim to validate the artefact empirically at this stage, but to establish its conceptual coherence, procedural structure, and analytical operability, providing a basis for subsequent evaluation.

Sections 3.1 to 3.3 define the artefact’s core analytical components and their inferential structure, including the evidential basis (relational units), the heuristic layer (patterns), and the organisation of the analytical process. Sections 3.4 and 3.5 describe the artefact’s operationalisation through analytical sheets and its demonstration in application.

3.1 Relational synthesis of socio-spatial evidence (RUs)

The literature synthesis aimed to reorganise socio-spatial evidence on relationships between spatial configuration, everyday practices, and socio-spatial effects into an analytically operable form for architectural interpretation. In this study, evidence refers to empirically reported associations between spatial conditions, forms of use, and experienced outcomes.

As these associations are typically presented as context-dependent findings, they were reorganised into transferable analytical structures. To this end, procedures from integrative review and qualitative thematic synthesis were combined to identify and compare configuration–practice–effect relationships across independent studies.

These relationships were reconstructed as relational units (RUs), defined as analytical constructs that explicitly articulate configuration–practice–effect associations. RUs are not raw data or causal claims, but evidence-based reconstructions derived from empirical material.

Their epistemic validity is established through two conditions:

1. traceability to explicit or clearly supported empirical descriptions; and

2. cross-study convergence of structurally similar relationships within the analysed corpus.

RUs were constructed in two conditions. When all three components were explicitly reported, the RU was derived directly from the source. When only partial relationships were available, RUs were retained only when at least two components were empirically supported, and the third could be reconstructed as a logical implication of the reported association, without introducing external elements. These cases were treated as analytically weaker and included only when consistent with convergent evidence across studies.

All RUs were recorded in a structured format to preserve traceability, and interpretative decisions—particularly in cases of partial reconstruction—were explicitly documented.

The resulting set of RUs constitutes an intermediate evidential layer, reorganising existing evidence into analytically comparable relationships. It does not produce new empirical findings; rather, it enables the systematic mobilisation of evidence in architectural interpretation.

Given the corpus's limited size, the synthesis does not claim generalisability beyond the analysed studies. The identified relationships should therefore be understood as recurrent within the corpus.

3.1.1 Scope and search strategy

The review focused on small neighbourhood spatial layouts, particularly housing with shared spaces. Cohousing was adopted as an analytical domain due to its explicit articulation between spatial configuration, everyday practices, and socio-spatial effects, which facilitates the identification of configuration–practice–effect relationships.

Searches were conducted in Scopus, Web of Science, and Engineering Village, targeting peer-reviewed studies addressing relationships between spatial configuration and socio-spatial dynamics. Data collection was carried out on 17 April 2025 and managed using the State of the Art through Systematic Review (StArt) software, supporting screening, duplicate removal, and the consistent application of inclusion and exclusion criteria (Wohlin, 2014), as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1
Study selection process and evidential filtering for relational synthesis

A total of 25 studies were initially selected based on thematic relevance. However, not all studies provided empirical material suitable for relational synthesis, particularly when relationships between spatial configuration, everyday practices, and socio-spatial effects were not explicitly reported or could not be reasonably reconstructed from the data presented.

An additional evidential filtering stage was therefore applied, focusing on the presence of empirically grounded descriptions of configuration–practice–effect relationships. This process yielded a subset of 17 studies containing primary empirical material that could support the construction of RUs, which constitute the evidential basis for the analysis.

3.1.2 Data extraction and definition of relational units

Data extraction was conducted through structured interpretative coding applied to the subset of empirical studies (N = 17). The objective was to reconstruct empirically grounded associations linking spatial configuration, everyday practices, and socio-spatial effects.

The coding process followed the relational framework presented in Table 1, which guided the identification of each component. For each selected excerpt, spatial configuration, everyday practices, and socio-spatial effects were first identified and specified separately. These components were then articulated into a relational statement, forming a relational unit (RU).

Table 1
Relational coding framework for the identification and structuring of relational units

Component	Definition	Examples
Spatial configuration	Configurational properties and spatial arrangements that organise spatial relations (e.g., proximity, accessibility, visibility and connectivity), structuring opportunities for interaction within the analysed situation.	Courtyards, paths, shared spaces; proximity; accessibility; connectivity; visibility
Everyday practices	Recurrent and situated actions that both emerge from and mediate the relationship between spatial configuration and socio-spatial effects.	Circulation; informal encounters; staying; co-presence; shared use; withdrawal
Socio-spatial effects	Reported or experienced outcomes emerging from the interaction between spatial configuration and everyday practices.	Social interaction; sense of belonging; perceived safety; appropriation; privacy; well-being

To ensure consistency and traceability, RUs were recorded in a structured tabular format. Each RU includes spatial configuration, everyday practices, socio-spatial effects, contextual mediators, a synthesised relational statement, an indicative assessment of evidential strength, and analytical notes.

Each RU was formulated as a configuration–practice–effect relationship, in which everyday practices mediate between spatial conditions and socio-spatial outcomes.

Only relationships grounded in explicit or clearly supported empirical descriptions were included. Cases that could not be reconstructed without exceeding the empirical context of the source material were excluded.

Evidential strength was qualitatively assessed based on the explicitness and completeness of the reported relationships. Analytical notes documented interpretative decisions, including cases of partial reconstruction and ambiguity, ensuring transparency and reflexivity in the coding process.

Figure 2 presents a simplified example of RU extraction, illustrating how empirical material is transformed into a relational unit through component identification and relational synthesis.

Figure 2
Example of RU extraction and structuring from empirical material based on RUs

3.1.3 Analytical procedure and relational synthesis

The analytical procedure aimed to identify convergences across RUs through a structured process of comparison and synthesis. RUs (N = 60), derived from the empirical corpus (N = 17), were systematically compared to identify structural equivalences based on three criteria:

1. similarity in the underlying configurational logic;

2. correspondence in mediating everyday practices; and

3. alignment in the direction of socio-spatial effects.

RUs were grouped when these three conditions were jointly satisfied, indicating that they expressed comparable configuration–practice–effect relationships, despite differences in context or empirical source. Grouping was conducted inductively across studies, allowing relationships reported in different cases to be examined in relation to one another. When RUs were partially matched, grouping was accepted only when the core configurational mechanism and the direction of the effect remained consistent.

Subsequent refinement aimed to stabilise these groupings by excluding inconsistent cases and consolidating those supported by convergent evidence across multiple studies. This process ensured that each grouping represented a recurrent relational structure within the analysed corpus.

The outcome of this synthesis was the definition of higher-level relational structures, each representing a set of RUs sharing a common configuration–practice–effect logic. These structures constitute the primary analytical output of the synthesis and form the evidential basis for the results presented in Section 4.

Given the qualitative and interpretative nature of the synthesis, the procedure does not aim at statistical reproducibility. Instead, its reliability is ensured through explicit comparison criteria, traceability to the underlying RUs, and transparency in the grouping logic. Figure 3 illustrates the convergent synthesis described above.

Figure 3
Convergent analytical process from RUs to synthesised relational structures

3.2 Heuristic qualification through patterns

In addition to the evidential basis provided by RUs, the framework incorporates patterns derived from A Pattern Language (Alexander; Ishikawa; Silverstein, 1977) as heuristic references to qualify interpretation.

APL patterns are mobilised after evidence-based inference and do not generate or validate socio-spatial relationships. Their role is to support interpretation through spatial analogy, associating identified configurations with recurrent spatial situations described in the pattern language. This establishes two analytical levels: an evidential level, grounded in configuration–practice–effect relationships; and a heuristic level, in which patterns extend interpretation by qualifying spatial and experiential dimensions.

Pattern selection followed a structured filtering and alignment procedure (Figure 4), aimed at constructing a bounded, analytically coherent repertoire rather than exhaustively using the pattern language. The selection was not intended to be exhaustive but to construct a coherent subset aligned with the study’s analytical focus, based on iterative screening and assessment of configurational relevance.

Figure 4
Pattern selection and analytical integration protocol

Patterns were retained only when they satisfied all the following conditions:

1. coherence with the analytical domain (cohousing);

2. compatibility with the small-neighbourhood scale;

3. recognisability in architectural representations (plans and sections); and

4. correspondence with the relational structures identified in the evidential synthesis. Patterns that were overly generic, redundant, or weakly related to spatial configuration were excluded.

In the results, patterns are presented as a structured heuristic repertoire, identified by their original names and numbering from A Pattern Language. They are not reproduced as full descriptions or graphical diagrams; instead, they are reformulated as analytical references, including their configurational logic and interpretative contribution. Patterns are applied as a constrained interpretative layer, used only after evidential inference and without altering its evidential basis.

3.3 Structure of the analytical–operational framework

The framework is structured as an analytical–operational system that organises inferential reasoning for interpreting architectural representations. It links four components: spatial configurations, analytical spatial categories, evidential relationships, and heuristic qualification. This structure does not introduce new socio-spatial relationships but organises existing evidence into an explicit inferential system for analytical use.

Spatial configurations constitute the object of analysis. Analytical spatial categories function as organisational dimensions that structure how these configurations are described and compared. They do not determine configurations or generate inferences.

Evidential relationships provide the basis for inference by linking spatial configuration, everyday practices, and socio-spatial effects. Heuristic references (patterns) operate at a complementary level, supporting the qualification of interpretation without altering its evidential basis.

The framework is organised into three levels: observation (spatial configurations described through analytical categories), evidential inference, and heuristic qualification. These levels support the formulation of plausible, contextually conditioned interpretations. Figure 5 presents the framework's structure.

Figure 5
Analytical–operational structure of inferential reasoning in the framework

3.4 Operational structure of the artefact

The framework is operationalised through analytical sheets that structure the interpretation of architectural representations by integrating evidential, heuristic, and organisational components within a single analytical device.

3.4.1 Analytical sheets

Each analytical sheet integrates three components that operate at different levels:

1. analytical spatial categories, which structure the identification and description of spatial configurations;

2. evidential relationships, derived from RUs, which support inference by linking spatial configuration, everyday practices, and socio-spatial effects; and

3. heuristic references (patterns), which may be used to qualify interpretation through spatial analogy.

The use of analytical sheets follows a structured but non-deterministic sequence: spatial configurations are first identified and described using analytical spatial categories; evidential relationships are then mobilised to support inference; and heuristic references may be incorporated to qualify the interpretation.

Analytical spatial categories operate at the level of description. They do not generate inferences, but organise how spatial configurations are observed and recorded, enabling consistent comparison across cases. A single configuration may be described through more than one category. The identification of the spatial configuration in the representation guides the completion of the analytical sheet.

This structure distinguishes observation, evidential inference, and interpretative qualification, while preserving the context-sensitive and non-deterministic character of architectural interpretation.

3.4.2 Analytical spatial categories

Analytical spatial categories are defined a priori to organise the description of spatial configurations in plans and sections. They are selected based on three criteria: legibility in architectural representations, relevance to the small-neighbourhood scale, and applicability to housing layouts with shared spaces.

Their definition is independent from the RUs and is informed by morphological approaches to spatial analysis, drawing on environment–behaviour studies (Zeisel, 2006; Rapoport, 1977), configurational analysis (Hillier; Hanson, 1984), and urban design frameworks (Bentley et al., 1985; Carmona et al., 2003).

Within the framework, categories organise how spatial configurations are described and compared across cases. In practice, they define the analytical focus (e.g., circulation, interfaces, spatial organisation) and are operationalised through standardised graphical annotations in drawings.

Figure 6 presents the corresponding graphical annotation system used to identify and represent these categories in plans. Table 2 defines the analytical spatial categories and their scope within the analysis.

Figure 6
Analytical spatial categories and standardised graphical annotation in plans

Table 2
Analytical spatial categories and analytical scope

Category	Operational definition	Analytical focus
Spatial organisation	Arrangement and grouping of dwellings and shared spaces within the layout	Identification of spatial distribution patterns and relationships between private and collective domains
Circulation and access	Structure of paths and connections linking spaces and entrances	Analysis of movement patterns, connectivity, and potential for co-presence through circulation
Shared spatial systems	Location and integration of collective-use spaces within the layout	Assessment of centrality, accessibility, and role of shared spaces in supporting everyday activities
Spatial transitions	Articulation between private, semi-private, and collective domains	Examination of gradation, thresholds, and conditions for mediated interaction
Spatial boundaries	Definition and permeability of edges between spatial domains	Analysis of enclosure, exposure, and visual/physical interfaces between spaces

3.5 Demonstration strategy

To examine the artefact’s analytical operability, the framework is applied to the analysis of a cohousing plan at the small-neighbourhood scale, selected for its clarity in representing spatial configurations and socio-spatial relationships.

The demonstration follows the operational sequence defined in the analytical sheets, making explicit:

1. how spatial configurations are identified and described;

2. how RUs are mobilised as the evidential basis for inference; and

3. how patterns are incorporated as heuristic references to qualify interpretation.

The purpose of this demonstration is not to empirically validate the artefact, but to expose and examine its internal analytical logic in practice. It allows the assessment of:

1. the coherence between evidential inputs and interpretative outputs;

2. the traceability of inferential steps; and

3. the clarity and consistency of the analytical procedure.

Within the DSR cycle (Hevner et al., 2004; Peffers et al., 2007), this corresponds to a demonstration stage, in which the artefact is applied to a representative case to verify its capacity to structure reasoning in practice, prior to empirical evaluation.

The contribution of this stage lies in making the inferential process explicit and open to scrutiny, enabling subsequent validation in future research. It therefore establishes the artefact’s analytical plausibility and operational coherence, rather than its empirical effectiveness.

4 Results

The results align with the artefact’s analytical outputs, which consist of a structured reorganisation of previously reported socio-spatial evidence rather than new empirical findings or generalisable claims. Sections 4.1 and 4.2 present the evidential and heuristic components, while Sections 4.3 to 4.5 describe their integration and application within the analytical framework.

4.1 Relational structures derived from relational units

The relational synthesis yielded eight relational structures, derived from the consolidation of RUs across the analysed corpus (N = 17). These structures correspond to groupings of RUs that satisfy the comparison criteria defined in Section 3.1.3, organising convergences in configuration–practice–effect relationships across studies.

Rather than representing independent constructs, the structures are analytical groupings of RUs with comparable relational formulations. Their traceability to the underlying evidence is presented in Table 3.

Table 3
Relational structures derived from RUs and their evidential basis

Relational structure	Configuration–practice–effect association	Supporting RUs	Supporting studies
1 Shared pedestrian circulation	Configurations in which pedestrian circulation is structured through shared internal spaces—such as pedestrian streets, paths, and courtyards—within car-free residential clusters, with vehicular access restricted to the periphery, require movement through these shared domains. These conditions are associated with walking and passing by others, contributing to co-presence and opportunities for encounter, while segregated or bypass access routes are associated with reduced interaction.	RU1, RU6, RU8, RU9, RU16, RU24, RU25, RU26, RU36, RU39, RU45, RU49, RU52, RU56	Fromm (2000, 2012), Glass (2013), Lies, Kang and Sample (2017), Marcus (2000), Ruiu (2015, 2016), Sanguinetti (2014) and Williams (2005a, 2005b)
2 Central common house	Configurations in which the common house is centrally located and spatially integrated within the residential layout, and visually accessible from surrounding dwellings and circulation routes, increase awareness of shared activities and potential engagement. When combined with shared facilities (e.g., kitchen, dining, and meeting spaces), these conditions are associated with participation in collective and organised practices, contributing to social interaction and cohesion, although outcomes vary with levels of participation.	RU2, RU5, RU10, RU18, RU35, RU44, RU54, RU57	Fromm (2000, 2012), Glass (2013), Marcus (2000), Ruiu (2016), Sanguinetti (2014) and Williams (2005a, 2005b)
3 Dwelling-space visibility	Configurations enabling visual connections between dwellings and shared spaces—through features such as openings, orientation, and circulation routes within the visual field of residents—are associated with practices of seeing and being seen, contributing to awareness, interaction potential, and informal surveillance. However, where visual exposure is high and less controllable, these conditions may also be associated with reduced perceived privacy or withdrawal.	RU3, RU4, RU11, RU12, RU20, RU40, RU41, RU47, RU48, RU53, RU58	Fromm (2000), Ledent and Salembier (2021), Lenel, Demoty and Schaut (2020), Marcus (2000), Ruiu (2015), Wang, Pan andHadjri (2018), Weeks et al. (2022) and Williams (2005a, 2005b)
4 Transitional interfaces	Configurations incorporating articulated transitional zones between dwellings and shared spaces—such as porches, front gardens, and semi-private outdoor areas that introduce spatial depth and gradation between private and collective domains—are associated with practices of lingering, observing, and selective engagement. These conditions contribute to mediated sociability and negotiate interaction, while the absence of such transitional articulation, or conditions of excessive exposure, are associated with discomfort and withdrawal.	RU7, RU13, RU14, RU15, RU23, RU27, RU42, RU51, RU55, RU59, RU60	Fromm (2012), Lenel, Demoty and Schaut (2020), Lies, Kang and Sample (2017), Marcus (2000), Ruiu (2015) and Williams (2005a, 2005b)
5 Clustered dwelling layout	Configurations in which dwellings are clustered around shared outdoor spaces that organise everyday movement and activity within the residential layout are associated with repeated encounters and everyday interaction. These conditions contribute to social bonding and the formation of social relations over time, particularly where spatial proximity reinforces opportunities for co-presence.	RU34, RU37, RU46, RU50	Marcus (2000), Ruiu (2016), Sanguinetti (2014) and Williams (2005a)
6 Shared green spaces	Configurations involving shared outdoor spaces—such as gardens and courtyards—spatially integrated within residential clusters and directly overlooked by dwellings are associated with practices such as staying, play, gardening, and informal meetings. These conditions contribute to co-presence, opportunities for interaction, perceived safety, and connection to nature.	RU19, RU21, RU43	Marcus (2000) and Sanguinetti (2014)
7 Overlooked shared spaces	Configurations in which dwellings are oriented toward shared outdoor spaces and incorporate semi-public, occupiable interfaces adjacent to the dwelling—such as front yards and thresholds—with direct visual connections to shared areas are associated with practices such as informal childcare, supervision, and mutual assistance. These conditions contribute to perceived safety, reduced isolation, and the development of support networks.	RU21, RU29, RU38, RU48	Marcus (2000), Markle et al. (2015), Ruiu (2016) and Weeks (2022)
8 Shared domestic facilities	Configurations in which shared facilities replace functions typically located within private dwellings (e.g., laundry, guest rooms, kitchens), combined with smaller private units, are associated with increased collective use of shared resources and reduced reliance on private space. These conditions may contribute to more efficient use of space within the residential setting.	RU28, RU30, RU31, RU32, RU33	Marckmann, Gram-Hanssen and Christensen (2012) and Meltzer (2000)

The synthesis highlights how specific configurational conditions are associated with recurrent patterns of everyday practices in cohousing environments within the analysed corpus.

Pedestrian-oriented circulation systems structured through shared internal spaces facilitate movement through these domains, supporting co-presence and opportunities for encounter. The centrality and spatial integration of the common house and shared facilities are associated with collective activities, while visual permeability between dwellings and shared spaces contributes to awareness, interaction potential, and informal surveillance, with possible implications for perceived privacy.

Transitional interfaces mediate the relationship between private and shared domains, enabling selective engagement, while clustered dwelling layouts are associated with repeated encounters over time. Shared green spaces support practices such as staying, play, and informal meetings and, when combined with visual access and proximity, are associated with informal supervision and mutual support.

A complementary set of associations concerns configurations in which shared facilities replace functions typically located within private dwellings, supporting collective use and reduced reliance on private space.

Some RUs contribute to more than one relational structure when overlapping configurational mechanisms are involved.

These results demonstrate how the organisation of RUs into relational structures enables the explicit articulation of configuration–practice–effect associations, supporting the structured interpretation of architectural representations at the small-neighbourhood scale.

4.2 Heuristic repertoire

The relational structures identified in Section 4.1 were complemented by a bounded heuristic repertoire derived from A Pattern Language (Alexander; Ishikawa; Silverstein, 1977). Patterns were selected and associated with these structures according to the criteria defined in Section 3.2.

APL patterns are presented as heuristic references to support the interpretative qualification of configuration–practice–effect associations through spatial analogy. Table 4 summarises the selected patterns and their associations with the relational structures.

Table 4
Selected patterns as heuristic references aligned with relational structures

Relational structure	Associated patterns	Configurational logic	Interpretative contribution
Shared pedestrian circulation	100 Pedestrian Street; 98 Circulation Realms; 101 Building Thoroughfare; 120 Paths and Goals	Pedestrian movement structured through interconnected internal paths within shared domains	Frames co-presence as a spatially structured condition emerging from continuous exposure to shared movement paths
Central common house	129 Common Areas at the Heart; 99 Main Building	Centralised and spatially integrated shared facilities	Frames collective activities as spatially organised around a centralised spatial focus
Dwelling–space visibility	192 Windows Overlooking Life; 164 Street Windows; 165 Opening to the Street; 122 Building Fronts	Visual permeability between dwellings and shared spaces	Frames awareness and interaction potential as effects of structured visual relationships
Transitional interfaces	36 Degrees of Publicness; 127 Intimacy Gradient; 112 Entrance Transition; 130 Entrance Room	Gradation between private and collective spatial domains	Frames sociability as a condition regulated through spatial thresholds
Clustered dwelling layout	37 House Cluster; 95 Building Complex	Grouping of dwellings around shared spaces	Frames repeated encounters as a function of spatial proximity and layout organisation
Shared green spaces	115 Courtyards Which Live; 60 Accessible Green; 69 Public Outdoor Room; 67 Common Land	Shared outdoor spaces integrated within residential layout	Frames informal activities and encounters as emerging from spatially integrated outdoor domains
Overlooked shared spaces	192 Windows Overlooking Life; 122 Building Fronts; 164 Street Windows	Visual orientation of dwellings towards shared spaces	Frames informal supervision and support as effects of spatially structured visibility and adjacency
Shared domestic facilities	129 Common Areas at the Heart	Centralisation of domestic functions within shared facilities	Frames collective resource use as a spatial reorganisation of domestic functions, with limited explanatory coverage

• Source: organised by the authors based on patterns from A Pattern Language (Alexander; Ishikawa; Silverstein, 1977).

These associations do not establish fixed correspondences. Rather, they indicate analytically coherent alignments based on shared configurational logic. APL patterns may contribute to more than one structure and can be mobilised flexibly in interpretation.

4.3 Analytical–operational structure of the framework

The integration of the relational structures (Section 4.1) and the heuristic repertoire (Section 4.2) yields an analytical–operational structure for interpreting architectural representations at the small-neighbourhood scale.

The structure follows a three-step sequence:

1. identification of spatial configurations in plans and sections;

2. mobilisation of relational structures as the evidential basis for inferring configuration–practice–effect relationships; and

3. optional use of patterns to qualify these inferences through spatial analogy.

This sequence links spatial observation to interpretation by associating identified configurations with recurrent relational structures, enabling the formulation of traceable interpretative propositions. Patterns operate as a complementary layer, qualifying interpretation without altering the evidential basis of inference. Figure 7 presents the resulting inferential structure.

Figure 7
Inferential structure of the analytical-operational framework

4.4 Operationalisation: analytical sheets

The operationalisation of the framework yielded a set of analytical sheets that structure the interpretation of architectural representations in a clear, consistent format applicable to design and research contexts.

The sheets organise the analytical process into three components:

1. identification and description of spatial configurations based on architectural representations;

2. formulation of evidence-based inferences linking spatial configuration, everyday practices, and socio-spatial effects, synthesised as a concise interpretative proposition; and

3. optional incorporation of heuristic references to qualify interpretation. In addition, the sheets include a component that confronts inferred propositions with residents’ reported experiences, enabling the identification of convergences, divergences, and contextual mediations.

Although RUs structure the framework's evidential basis, they are not explicitly represented in the sheets. Instead, the evidential content is translated into a simplified operational format, making the framework applicable in practice.

The resulting format supports the explicit recording of interpretative reasoning, facilitates comparison across cases, and enables articulation of the relationship between analytical inference and empirical observation. Figure 8 presents the analytical sheet template.

Figure 8
Analytical sheet (template) for architectural interpretation and empirical confrontation

4.5 Demonstration of artefact use

This section demonstrates the application of the analytical sheet for interpreting a spatial configuration at the small-neighbourhood scale. The procedure is presented as a sequential process: spatial configurations are first identified and described using the analytical spatial categories; these are then associated with relational structures derived from the literature to support evidence-based inferences; finally, patterns are mobilised as heuristic references to qualify interpretation, without altering the evidential basis of the inference.

The aim is to illustrate how spatial observation, evidential grounding, and heuristic qualification are articulated within a structured analytical process, making explicit how interpretative propositions are derived from previously synthesised socio-spatial evidence. This demonstration focuses on analytical operability and does not constitute empirical validation, which is addressed in subsequent stages of the DSR process.

4.5.1 Case configuration

Figure 9 presents the site plan of Marmalade Lane Cohousing, Cambridge, UK (Mole Architects, 2015). The layout is organised as a car-free residential environment, in which pedestrian movement is structured through a continuous internal network of shared paths connecting dwelling entrances and communal spaces, while vehicular access is restricted to the perimeter.

Figure 9
Analysed plan and identification of spatial configuration

The analysis focuses on the internal pedestrian circulation system as the primary spatial configuration. This configuration is examined as a continuous movement network that structures everyday access through shared domains. Other spatial elements, such as the central green space and the arrangement of dwellings, are treated as contextual conditions and are not mobilised here as independent analytical structures.

4.5.2 Analytical sheet (application)

Figure 10 presents the analytical sheet corresponding to the selected configuration. The sheet operationalises the framework by structuring the analytical process into a defined sequence:

Figure 10
Analytical sheet applied to the selected spatial configuration

1. selecting an analytical spatial category to frame observation;

2. identifying a spatial configuration within that category;

3. mobilising a relational structure as an evidential basis; and

4. formulating a configuration–practice–effect inference, which may be further qualified through heuristic references.

This sequence introduces a procedural structure that differs from conventional interpretative practices, which typically rely on tacit judgement. By making each step explicit, the analytical sheet enables the reasoning process to be recorded, communicated, and replicated across cases.

4.5.3 Interpretation

The analytical sheet establishes an explicit association between the identified configuration and recurrent practices related to practices across shared domains. The organisation of pedestrian circulation through internal paths requires movement within shared spaces, exposing residents to repeated encounters in everyday routines.

This interpretation is grounded in the relational structure of shared pedestrian circulation (Section 4.1), which links pedestrian-oriented layouts to practices such as passing-by and co-presence, thereby increasing opportunities for incidental encounters. The resulting interpretative proposition characterises the configuration as a movement-based socio-spatial system in which circulation is channelled through shared internal paths, increasing the likelihood of co-presence among residents. This proposition is derived from the evidential structure and does not assume deterministic outcomes.

The heuristic layer complements this reading by highlighting configurational aspects of the circulation system, such as continuity, spatial integration, and the organisation of movement paths. Rather than generating or validating the inference, this layer supports interpretation by making the configuration's spatial logic more explicit.

By structuring the analysis in a defined sequence—category selection, configuration identification, evidential mobilisation, and inferential formulation—the artefact enables different researchers to interpret spatial configurations using the same analytical criteria and evidential basis. This makes interpretative propositions comparable and open to scrutiny, rather than remaining implicit or resting solely on individual judgement.

Together, the analytical sheet and its interpretation demonstrate the artefact’s capacity to structure interpretative reasoning, making the inferential process explicit, traceable, and communicable.

5 Discussions

This study addresses the problem of operationalising socio-spatial knowledge from EBS in architectural interpretation. Its contribution is primarily incremental, as it reorganises existing EBS evidence into an explicit inferential structure rather than generating new empirical findings. While EBS provides extensive evidence on relationships between spatial conditions and human behaviour, this knowledge is typically reported as context-specific findings and lacks an explicit structure for interpretative use. The artefact proposed in this study addresses this gap by reorganising dispersed empirical associations into a structured system linking spatial configuration, everyday practices, and socio-spatial effects.

In addition to its analytical contribution, the framework may support diverse use contexts. In research, it provides a structured procedure for organising and mobilising socio-spatial evidence. In teaching, it may support the development of interpretative skills by making inferential reasoning explicit. In practice, it may assist the reading and assessment of architectural representations by structuring the articulation between spatial configuration and potential socio-spatial effects.

These applications, however, depend on the context of use and the evidential basis mobilised. In this sense, the manifestation of socio-spatial effects is also conditioned by contextual mediators that are not explicitly modelled in the framework, including aspects related to privacy—particularly acoustic conditions—cultural differences in the use and appropriation of semi-public spaces, and issues of maintenance and management of shared environments. Such factors influence how spatial configurations are experienced in practice and should be considered when interpreting the scope and applicability of the inferred relationships.

Within a DSR approach, the contribution is a method-oriented artefact comprising an analytical–operational framework and its instantiation in analytical sheets. The artefact does not constitute a predictive model, but a structured procedure for mobilising existing evidence in the formulation of interpretative propositions.

RUs are understood as analytical reconstructions derived from empirical studies. Their validity is grounded in traceability to reported evidence and in the convergence of similar relationships across studies. The framework does not produce new empirical findings but reorganises existing evidence into analytically comparable structures.

The heuristic layer introduces an additional interpretative dimension whose contribution has not been empirically validated in this study. While it enables the qualification of inferences through spatial analogy, its use depends on analytical judgement and may influence interpretation. Its role should therefore be understood as exploratory rather than evidential.

The study has limitations. The evidential corpus is relatively small, and the identified relational structures should be understood as recurrent within the analysed corpus rather than as general properties of the phenomenon. In addition, the reconstruction of partially reported relationships involves interpretative judgement, which may affect reproducibility.

The demonstration does not constitute validation, but an examination of the artefact’s analytical operability. Within the DSR cycle, this corresponds to a demonstration stage preceding empirical evaluation, which will be addressed in future research.

6 Conclusions

This study addresses the challenge of operationalising socio-spatial knowledge in architectural interpretation by proposing a method-oriented artefact developed within a DSR approach. The artefact consists of an analytical–operational framework that reorganises evidence from EBS into relational structures linking spatial configuration, everyday practices, and socio-spatial effects.

The results indicate that existing socio-spatial evidence can be translated into structured relational forms that support architectural interpretation without assuming deterministic relationships. By articulating evidence-based inference and heuristic qualification through APL patterns, the artefact provides a structured yet flexible procedure for reading architectural representations, while recognising the role of contextual mediators in shaping socio-spatial outcomes.

The study’s main contribution is to make the inferential logic of architectural interpretation explicit and operationalisable. Rather than producing new empirical findings, it advances a means of organising and mobilising existing evidence, reducing reliance on tacit reasoning while preserving the context-sensitive character of architectural analysis.

The demonstration shows that spatial observation, evidential associations, and interpretative propositions can be articulated within a coherent analytical framework, supporting the systematic recording and communication of interpretative reasoning.

The study marks an intermediate stage in the artefact’s development. Future work will focus on its empirical evaluation, particularly through comparative analyses of cohousing architectural designs and investigations into residents’ lived experiences. These steps will support the assessment of the artefact’s scope, limitations, and applicability, and inform its potential use across other neighbourhood-scale housing contexts.

• VIRIATO, M. F. A. da S.; MONTEIRO, E. Z.; PINA, S. A. M. G.; TZORTZOPOULOS, P.; DAVIS, H. Making socio-spatial knowledge explicit in architectural interpretation: a framework for neighbourhood-scale housing. Ambiente Construído, Porto Alegre, v. 26, e151993, jan./dez. 2026. ISSN 1678-8621 Associação Nacional de Tecnologia do Ambiente Construído. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s1678-86212026000101000
• Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Writing Process
  Generative AI was used for language editing. The authors take full responsibility for the content of this article.
• Financial Support
  This research was supported by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) through the CAPES Social Demand Program (Finance Code 001; Grant No. 88887.663093/2022-00) and the CAPES Sandwich Doctorate Program (PDSE) (Finance Code 001; Grant No. 88881.125865/2025-01). Publication costs were funded by the Programa de Apoio à Pós-Graduação (PROAP) at UNICAMP, Brazil. Additional support was provided through an Erasmus+ mobility project at the School of Arts and Humanities, University of Huddersfield, UK.

Data Availability Statement

Research materials are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request, subject to confidentiality restrictions.

References

• ALEXANDER, C. A city is not a tree. Architectural Forum, v. 122, n. 1, p. 58–62, 1965.
• ALEXANDER, C.; ISHIKAWA, S.; SILVERSTEIN, M. A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.
• ALEXANDER, C. Center for Environmental Structure seminar report, excerpt, 1967. In: DAVIS, Howard (ed.). Early and Unpublished Writings of Christopher Alexander: thinking, building, writing. New York: Routledge, 2023a. Cap. 6. p. 57-69.
• ALEXANDER, C. Early ideas for the pattern language format, 1967–68. In: DAVIS, Howard (ed.). Early and Unpublished Writings of Christopher Alexander: thinking, building, writing. New York: Routledge, 2023b. Cap. 7. p. 70-83.
• ALEXANDER, C. The nature of order: an essay on the art of building and the nature of the universe. Book four: the luminous ground. Berkeley: The Center for Environmental Structure, 2004.
• ALEXANDER, C. The timeless way of building New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.
• ANGEL, S.; SALINGAROS, N. A. Christopher Alexander’s architectural insights and limitations. New Design Ideas, v. 6, n. 3, p. 386–401, 2022.
• BARROS, R. R. M. P.; PINA, S. A. M. G. Sinfonia inacabada da habitação coletiva: lições a partir do previ para uma arquitetura de possibilidades. Ambiente Construído, [S. l.], v. 12, n. 3, p. 7–26, 2012.
• BARROS, R. R. M. P.; PINA, S. A. M. G. Uma abordagem de inspiração humanizadora para o projeto de habitação coletiva mais sustentável. Ambiente Construído, Porto Alegre, v. 10, n. 3, p. 121–135, 2010.
• BENTLEY, I. et al. Responsive environments: a manual for designers. London: Architectural Press, 1985.
• CABRERA, L.; HIROTA, E. H.; CODINHOTO, R. Métodos de avaliação de projetos de Habitação Social: apoio à tomada de decisão participativa e baseada em evidências. Ambiente Construído, Porto Alegre, v. 25, 2025.
• CANTER, D. The psychology of place London: Architectural Press, 1977.
• CARMONA, M. et al Public places, urban spaces: the dimensions of urban design. Oxford: Architectural Press, 2003.
• CROSS, N. Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, Cambridge, v. 17, n. 3, p. 49–55, 2001.
• DAVIS, H. Form and process in the transformation of the architect’s role in society. In: VERMAAS, P. E. et al (ed.). Philosophy and design: from engineering to architecture. Dordrecht: Springer, 2008.
• DAWES, M. J.; OSTWALD, M. J. Christopher Alexander’s A Pattern Language: analysing, mapping and classifying the critical response. City, Territory and Architecture, v. 4, n. 1, p. 1-14, dez. 2017.
• DOVEY, K. The pattern language and its enemies. Design Studies, v. 11, n. 1, p. 3-9, jan. 1990.
• FELSTEAD, A.; THWAITES, K. A grounded pattern language: testing a methodology for exploring cohousing residents’ involvement in shared outdoor spaces. Codesign, [S.L.], v. 20, n. 4, p. 531-547, 5 dez. 2023.
• FELSTEAD, A.; THWAITES, K.; SIMPSON, J. A Conceptual Framework for Urban Commoning in Shared Residential Landscapes in the UK. Sustainability, [S.L.], v. 11, n. 21, p. 1-24, 3 nov. 2019.
• FROMM, D. American cohousing: the first five years. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, v. 17, n. 1, p. 94–109, 2000.
• FROMM, D. Seeding community: collaborative housing as a strategy for social and neighbourhood repair. Built Environment, v. 38, n. 3, p. 364-394, jul. 2012.
• GEHL, J. Cities for people Washington: Island Press, 2010.
• GEHL, J. Life between buildings: using public space. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1987.
• GLASS, A. P. Lessons learned from a new elder cohousing community. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, v. 27, n. 4, p. 348-368, out. 2013.
• GOLDSCHMIDT, G. The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal, v. 4, n. 2, p. 123-143, jan. 1991.
• GROAT, L.; WANG, D. Architectural research methods 2. ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
• HAMILTON, D. K.; WATKINS, D. H. Evidence-based design for multiple building types Hoboken: Wiley, 2009.
• HEVNER, A. R. et al. Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, v. 28, n. 1, p. 75–105, 2004.
• HILLIER, B. Space is the machine: a configurational theory of architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
• HILLIER, B.; HANSON, J. The social logic of space Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
• HORAYANGKURA, V. Incorporating environment-behavior knowledge into the design process: an elusive challenge for architects in the 21st century. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, v. 50, p. 30-41, 2012.
• KAPLAN, R.; KAPLAN, S. The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
• KOWALTOWSKI, D. C. C. K. et al Reflexão sobre metodologias de projeto arquitetônico. Ambiente Construído, Porto Alegre, v. 6, n. 2, p. 7–19, 2008.
• KOWALTOWSKI, D. C. C. K.; GONÇALVES, P. P.; CLEVELAND, B. Better school architecture through design patterns. Learning Environments Research, v. 27, n. 3, p. 619-647, jun. 2024.
• LAWSON, B.; DORST, K. Design expertise Oxford: Architectural Press, 2009.
• LAWSON, B. How designers think: the design process demystified. 4. ed. Oxford: Architectural Press, 2005.
• LEDENT, G.; SALEMBIER, C. Co-housing to ease and share household chores? Spatial visibility and collective deliberation as levers for gender equality. Buildings, v. 11, n. 5, p. 189, 30 abr. 2021.
• LENEL, E.; DEMONTY, F.; SCHAUT, C. Contemporary cohousing experiments in the Brussels-Capital Region. Brussels Studies, p. 1-19, 2020.
• LIES, M. M.; KANG, M.; SAMPLE, R. K. Place attachment and design features in a rural senior cohousing community. Housing and Society, v. 44, n. 1-2, p. 41-63, May 2017.
• LUO, Z.; MARCHI, L.; GASPARI, J. A Systematic review of factors affecting user behavior in public open spaces under a changing climate. Sustainability, v. 17, n. 6, p. 2724, mar. 2025.
• MCCAMANT, K.; DURRETT, C. Creating Cohousing: building sustainable communities. Canada: New Society Publishers, 2011.
• MARCKMANN, B.; GRAM-HANSSEN, K.; CHRISTENSEN, T. H. Sustainable living and co-housing: evidence from a case study of eco-villages. Built Environment, v. 38, n. 3, p. 413–429, 2012.
• MARCUS, C. C. Site planning, building design and a sense of community: an analysis of six cohousing schemes in Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, v. 17, n. 2, p. 146–163, 2000.
• MARKLE, E. A. et al. Social support in the cohousing model of community: a mixed-methods analysis. Community Development, [S.L.], v. 46, n. 5, p. 616-631, 15 set. 2015.
• MELTZER, G. Cohousing: verifying the importance of community in the application of environmentalism. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, v. 17, n. 1, p. 110–132, 2000.
• MOLE ARCHITECTS. K1 Cohousing: Site Plan. Drawing no. 1502-L-100, revision P04. Cambridge, 2015. Architectural drawing provided by the Marmalade Lane Cohousing community.
• PEFFERS, K. et al. A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, v. 24, n. 3, p. 45–77, 2007.
• PREISER, W. F. E.; RABINOWITZ, H. Z.; WHITE, E. T. Post-occupancy evaluation New York: Routledge, 2015.
• PROTZEN, J. P. The poverty of the pattern language. Design Methods and Theories, v. 12, n. 3/4, p. 191–194, 1978.
• RAPOPORT, A. Environment-behaviour studies: past, present, and future. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Chicago, v. 25, n. 4, p. 276–281, 2008.
• RAPOPORT, A. Human aspects of urban form: towards a man-environment approach to urban form and design. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1977.
• RUIU, M. L. Participatory processes in designing cohousing communities: the case of the community project. Housing and Society, v. 43, n. 3, p. 168-181, set. 2016.
• RUIU, M. L. The social capital of cohousing communities. Sociology, v. 50, n. 2, p. 400-415, abr. 2015.
• SANGUINETTI, A. Transformational practices in cohousing: enhancing residents' connection to community and nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, [S.L.], v. 40, p. 86-96, dez. 2014.
• SCHÖN, D. A. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books, 1983.
• SOUZA, L. N.; KOWALTOWSKI, D. C. C. K.; WOOLNER, P. Parâmetros de projeto e métodos visuais APOs: estudo de duas escolas no Reino Unido. Ambiente Construído, Porto Alegre, v. 20, n. 3, p. 199-223, jul. 2020.
• SUWA, M.; TVERSKY, B. What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design Studies, v. 18, n. 4, p. 385-403, out. 1997.
• ULRICH, R. S. et al. A review of the research literature on evidence-based healthcare design. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, v. 1, n. 3, p. 61–125, 2008.
• VAN DER VOORDT, T. J. M.; VRIELINK, D.; VAN WEGEN, H. B. R. Comparative floorplan-analysis in programming and architectural design. Design Studies, v. 18, n. 1, p. 67-88, jan. 1997.
• WANG, J.; PAN, Y.; HADJRI, K. Exploring collaborative design and sustainable living in british cohousing Communities. Asian Journal of Behavioural Studies, v. 3, n. 14, p. 30, nov. 2018.
• WEEKS, L. E. et al. The best place to be? experiences of older adults living in canadian cohousing communities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Ageing and Environment, v. 37, n. 4, p. 421-441, ago. 2022.
• WHYTE, W. H. The social life of small urban spaces Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation, 1980.
• WILLIAMS, J. Designing Neighbourhoods for Social Interaction: the case of cohousing. Journal of Urban Design, [S.L.], v. 10, n. 2, p. 195-227, jun. 2005a.
• WILLIAMS, J. Sun, surf and sustainable housing—cohousing, the Californian experience. International Planning Studies, [S.L.], v. 10, n. 2, p. 145-177, maio 2005b.
• WOHLIN, C. Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT IN SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, 18., London, 2014. Proceedings [...] Longon, 2014.
• YAN, W.; KALAY, Y. E. Simulating human behaviour in built environments. In: MARTENS, B.; BROWN, A. (ed.). Computer aided architectural design futures 2005 Dordrecht: Springer, 2005.
• ZEISEL, J. Inquiry by design: environment/behavior/neuroscience in architecture, interiors, landscape, and planning. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006.
• ZIMRING, C.; REIZENSTEIN, J. Post-occupancy evaluation: an overview. Environment and Behavior, v. 12, n. 4, p. 429–450, 1980.

Edited by

• Guest editor:
  Giane de Campos Grigoletti

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  31 July 2026
• Date of issue
  Jan-Dec 2026

History

• Received
  25 Nov 2025
• Reviewed
  26 Mar 2026
• Accepted
  24 May 2026