05-11-2020 // CHALLENGE THE CHALLENGE

For the last few days, we have been working on the challenge the challenge. This piece can be found under the label 'proposal & challenge'. We looked at the challenge from different perspectives and searched for the question behind the question. We will answer the questions below based on the knowledge we have gained during the first few weeks. The answers to the questions below will therefore be based on the information we have gathered so far. The reason we only focus on the knowledge we have now is to clearly map where we are at this point in the process. Each time we have completed a diverging phase, we will bring together the challenge the challenge in a converging way. So we will now dive deeper into the second phase of the Double Diamond Model, the definition phase. We will define the information we have gained in the discovery phase. The definition stage in the Double Diamond model consists of filtering through all the information you got from stage one and elaborating on it. The definition stage aims to elaborate on the different components of the project, making sure everyone understands the context of the project. As mentioned earlier: we will not run through the Double Diamond model linearly; it is possible that we will enter the discovery phase again and will define this phase as well (Costa, 2018). 

In which systems is the challenge embedded?

This is probably the most technical question. We are aware that the origin of the challenge lies in many different systems and relates to several sectors or societal levels such as market, state, and civil society. There is not one specific system or societal actor to blame for the challenge and therefore, there is not just one solution to be found, which makes the challenge highly complex. This will be illustrated according to the welfare mix model as presented by Evers and Laville.

This model visualizes how there are basically three different societal levels: The state level, the market level, and the community level. Both the State and Market level can be seen as a sector and in between those three levels, there is a broad common ground named the third sector.

When the Philips company left the area of the Emmasingelkwadrant, the property was sold to different real estate developers. Almost nothing in the area is owned by the municipality, meaning that the state relatively has little influence in the development of the area. Nevertheless, the municipality is still responsible for handing out building permits to the project developers. These permits are only handed out for projects that are in line with the areal development vision that the municipality draws up for the area, meaning that the market actors are still depending on the state actors and the other way around.

In the areal-development vision, the municipality stated that they want to build a central park in the public space of the area. It will be prohibited to build housing on that specific piece of land. As the municipality is obligated by law to inform inhabitants about their plans and activities, we see how the community level is depending on the state actors. By informing the community about the development plans, the municipality raised the expectations of the inhabitants for a more livable public area. However, since the municipality does not own the ground, but the project developers need their permits the negotiations about the exact developments have taken years already. The inhabitants have become impatient as meanwhile the area looks like a construction site and this attracts people that cause nuisance in the neighborhood.

Furthermore, the state actors are depending on the community actors for political and financial reasons, think about taxes, and voting for example. Whereas the community depends on the market actors for providing housing and the market actors' finances are again depending on the community that utilizes that housing.

As may be clear, every actor is depending on the others and a good balance is highly important. That is why in the common ground, the third sector, different organizations arise to support the interests of the stakeholders. This is where we as Social Innovators and Community designers find our playfield, sometimes more to support in one specific level than others. Our role in this challenge is aimed at the welfare of the community within the public area during the time prior to the start of the development projects. However, we are enabled by the municipality or state actor. At this point, it is clear that the challenge is embedded in many different systems. However, we are not sure yet which will be a burden or a strength. We will be investigating this all throughout the project and be more specific in a later analysis. For now, we know that we will definitely run into internal work systems at the municipality and mental models within the community. However, we are not in a position to clearly define which are most relevant within our challenge (Evers, A. & Laville, J.-L., 2004).

Examples of subjects of investigation could be:

-   Unclarity from the municipality about their development plans due to too long taking negotiations.

-   Raised expectations by the municipality that influenced mental models of the community.

-   Bureaucracy within the organization of the municipality that discourages quick and concrete notable action within the community.

-   Mutual trust between the community and the municipality.

-   Willingness to invest in indirect/non-financial revenue by market actors.

-   Organizational competence of the community level.

What are the core elements/themes?

There are various elements that have already been mentioned in the above question but also emerged several times in the meetings with the municipality, VitalZone, and during the liveability meeting. Based on this knowledge, we will identify the elements that stood out to us most and which have been named more often. These are elements that can be important to keep in mind during the follow-up process. That does not mean that everything we mention is the truth. This is what we have found out over the past few weeks, but this does not necessarily have to be the truth. We continue saying that we will be critical of the knowledge we acquire.

At this moment, the Victoria Park is an empty space that looks like a construction site. Many developments are to come, but the question is: when will they start? It will take at least another year before the first developments can start. Until then, there must be more clarity for the stakeholders in this area. The construction of the park has been promised for a long time already, but at the moment both the municipality and the residents who were present at the liveability meeting have the feeling that little (active) is happening. Precisely because the park has been promised some years already, the stakeholders want to be kept informed of the state of affairs. Clarity is something they are wishing for. In addition, because little is happening, the area attracts people it shouldn't attract. These people cause nuisance and create an unsafe feeling for the neighborhood. There is a gutted building (carcass) that until recently was a place for homeless people, drug- and alcohol users to come together.

The stakeholders look at buildings ready for demolition and a poorly maintained park, which actually lends itself as a useful ground for possible activities or something that fits the needs of the stakeholders. The municipality as well as VitalZone and VANTOT (Sunseeker) have different ideas for ‘liven up’ the neighborhood. The only thing that is missing is the connecting factor. After all, there are several ideas conceived by various parties, but the question is to what extent these ideas actually meet the needs of the stakeholders. Although these parties want to be there for the stakeholders, they are also the ones who now have the ownership. Both the ideas factor and the implementing factor should actually lie with the stakeholders themselves in order to fill in the area meeting their needs to avoid certain expectations. 

Although this group will also be addressed extensively in the next question, it is nevertheless an important element to briefly mention in this question. More internationals than nationals live in this area. This group is generally difficult to reach, but important. Precisely because they have the upper hand. Whether it is because they see the municipality as "corrupt" (by comparing the municipality in their own country), or live here for a short time: Internationals are generally more difficult to involve.

Who are the stakeholders and how are they related to the challenge?

This text is written to inform and justify how we distinguish the stakeholders that are involved in our project. It does not necessarily mean there are no other stakeholders that could be involved, nor does it provide in-depth information about the specific stakeholders that are involved. The text merely provides insight into how we categorize stakeholders and how they are related to the challenge. For more specific information on the stakeholders involved, have a look at the stakeholder network map we have created in Kumu.

The stakeholders can be divided into several categories.

State/municipality: The municipality is our commissioner. More specifically we work for the areal domain and our supervisor is specialized in placemaking. Placemaking is a multi-faceted approach to the planning, design, and management of public spaces. Placemaking capitalizes on a local community's assets, inspiration, and potential, with the intention of creating public spaces that promote people's health, happiness, and well-being.

We have started our research by introducing ourselves and our assignment to every municipality official that is active in the Emmasingelkwadrant area. Think about the district coordinator, a communication manager, a participation strategist, and several project managers.  The roles of the different project managers vary from being responsible for the negotiation with project developers and the realization of their projects to guiding the designers of the new urban lighting systems in their process.

Furthermore, we have connected with VitalZone, which is a provincial organization that aims to stimulate communities focused on a health perspective. They aim to use the district as an example of a vital zone however, have not been able to have a lasting impression on the community so far.

Market/companies/organizations: There are many different profit-seeking companies active in the district that could be involved in the challenge, one more than the other. Take the real estate developers, for example, they have a big say in what the buildings are going to look like and are in negotiation with the municipality about what to do with the land. Nevertheless, the contact between these two parties is quite difficult which makes that we are not encouraged to engage with them. Especially since according to the municipality they have little interest in stimulating the community. On the contrary, we have been advised to get in contact with the housing companies as they have more interest in the welfare of the inhabitants of the area. Take Holland2stay for example, they have a direct financial interest in how eager people are to live in the buildings they own.

Local enterprises such as Trainmore gym, ZwartWit koffie, or Brownies and Downies are also directly related to the livability of the area. If the area is pleasant and attractive for inhabitants and visitors that will yield direct return. Moreover, they have direct contact with local inhabitants and have already established some kind of relationship with people that are prospective stakeholders for this project. Especially in these strange times of the Corona pandemic, in which it is hard to get in contact with people, the local enterprises could serve as a bridge between us and residents of the area. Even if they would only inform us about who could be interested in the livability of the public space and therefore, should be approached.

Nevertheless, we will not give all local enterprises much attention. We will focus on the enterprises that are located inwards to the public space. There are many companies located around the edge of the neighborhood and border on the bigger streets such as massage salons for example. It might be interesting later on during the project to inform them about specific events however we will not prioritize actively engaging with them as they are in no way linked to the public area in the center of the neighborhood.

Furthermore, we will be in contact with social enterprises that are active in the neighborhood. These have been established in many different forms such as the local library, the GGD, the refugee daycare center, and more. This group can transcend both the market and state category as they can be active in the playfield between government and social organizations. Social enterprises serve the welfare of people in the area and are therefore often directly linked to the challenges in the area. However, it is not clear yet if the challenge matches the specific goals of each organization and we have to check first if they are willing to engage in the challenge.

Inhabitants: The inhabitants probably do not have the most resources and are not all too well organized, but they definitely are the most important stakeholders. These are the people we work for, not our commissioner, but the ones having the most at stake. Only, perhaps, they do not know it yet. We will not act as professionals that know what to do but we will try to find out how they think we can make a positive impact and try to provoke it with them. They are the experts on their own wellbeing. What is interesting about the inhabitants of this specific area is that most people live in the area for just a few years and are therefore not as invested in the area as others might be. Moreover, only 41 percent of the inhabitants are natively Dutch and thus, form a minority. The biggest part of the inhabitants is international and exists out of ex-pats and foreign students for example. From the experience of the municipality officials, we know that usually mostly native inhabitants are involved in gatherings such as the livability consultation. Internationals often are not used to governments that involve citizens in their work. On the other hand, the pandemic has shown that internationals find it easier to join such gatherings online. This insight provides us the opportunity to engage with more inhabitants that have been interested in the local community development than prior to the pandemic.

What do you need to know?

At this stage of the project, we have a basic overview of the challenge, the current situation in the area, and what led up to this point. However, our insights are based on the perspective of the municipality. We started by exploring the municipality perspective as this is our commissioner which is involved with multiple stakeholders. We did not want to cross these stakeholders in their work as their information could prepare us for what to expect from the area and its inhabitants. Nevertheless, there is nothing more important than having an open attitude towards the situation. We have to be careful not to be biased with the perspective of the municipality when we engage with locals. We take this open attitude highly seriously and see the municipality perspective as background information that comes in useful with trying to understand the local’s perspectives on the area and its challenges.

We are now ready to engage with the locals, but we need to find the right strategy for our approach regarding engaging with locals. The right strategy could help us obtain useful information from the locals and at the same time could trigger them to take ownership and get involved with finding a solution for the challenges. Moreover, we need to find a way in which we can do this in a safe and ethically responsible, and legal manner. The Corona pandemic makes it more difficult for us to just go out and meet people in the public space of the area. Our government has urged us to limit social contacts and keep distance from other people. Moreover, we are not allowed to enter public space in groups bigger than two.

We hope to find the solution in engaging with the local entrepreneurs as they probably have already established social relationships in the area. We think that entrepreneurs could help us get in contact with prospective stakeholders and potential leaders of the local community. Therefore, we need to find out which parties/people/entrepreneurs are already socially active in the area and could potentially become important stakeholders in our project.

Furthermore, we need to know what topics could be valuable for dialogue with potential stakeholders. We think it would be relevant to see if we are able to steer the conversations in some kind of a research direction without losing our open mindset.

We also want to know what is already happening in the area. Linked to the theory of Asset Based Community Development and the DDW dialogue, we have learned that we need to find out what energy already flows in the area in order to see if we can link that to our goals and build upon the existing energy. This is called the third factor of success theory, which is based on finding chances to link the goals of inhabitants to policy goals in order to create value. As the goal of the project is to improve the livability of the public space for the residents, it is also important to find out if we are heading in the right direction with our research and not just take over the perspective from others, including the municipality.

Lastly, we especially want to find out how to engage with and involve the internationals living in the area. This subgroup of stakeholders is usually underrepresented in initiatives regarding urban development but is actually the majority of people in the district. Therefore, we feel that we are obliged to find a way to connect with and involve this group.

We already changed our challenge once and will not change it again since we are still satisfied and value our current challenge. Our challenge remains: How can we improve the general living experience in the public space of the Emmasingelkwadrant in the run-up to the development projects?

Are there examples that we can learn from?

Since we will go deeper into the challenge the challenge more often, we have now only looked at examples in this area that we can learn from. What is already going on in this area and who are the (social) enterprises behind it?

Vital Zone: The Vital Zone Institute is a social enterprise that specifically develops vital zones. Vital Zone works beyond the organizational boundaries on complex problems. These are persistent or sensitive problems such as unequal health, safety, and a sustainable healthy environment. Vital zones are areas where people live, work, and become older happily and vitally in a healthy environment. Yet there are 'red zones' as well, also known as 'loss' (verlies). In these zones illness, loneliness or stress play a major role in our lives and neighborhood. The "blue zones" so the "profit" (winst) can be achieved if we actively organize the vital zones and if we make the red zones smaller (See image in blog "21-10-2020 // RUNNING PROJECTS") (Vital Zone Institute, n.d.).

Vital Zone is one of the organizations that are also active in the Emmasingelkwadrant. We see Vital Zone not only as an example from which we can learn due to their experience in these types of areas and their ideas, which have largely arisen from hundreds of conversations on the street, with professionals, and in organizations. Vital Zone is also aware that as a vital changer you need energy and stakeholders to realize change. Everyone wants to do what counts. But we often only take action when there is certain pressure. What Vital Zone focuses on, and what is also interesting for our process, is that they consciously focus on doing less of what you do not want and doing more of what you want and contribute. 

VANTOT: Light experts Sam van Gurp and Esther Jongsma both graduated from the Design Academy Eindhoven. In 2015 they founded studio VANTOT in the same city. Here they experiment and bring technology and aesthetics together in their designs. The designers create lighting designs for the interior, a circuit of linked elements that together form an architectural curtain of light. They work for (inter) national clients, for collections, and on their own initiatives. They are now also designing for public spaces. This also applies to the SUNSEEKER that will be installed in the Emmasingelkwadrant.

With the Sunseeker they want to actively contribute to achieving the climate and sustainability ambitions of Eindhoven by making use of the two greatest qualities of the city: Technology & Design. In addition, with this project, they show how technology can contribute to meeting and connecting people. The Sunseeker contributes to awareness; people notice the moving objects. Visitors to the park will wonder how solar energy works and learn that it can be integrated well into objects around you. The Sunseeker has many possibilities that will create a day and night experience. In addition to awareness, the installation also leads to amazement and conversations (VANTOT, n.d.)

What we can learn from VANTOT and their Sunseeker, is how you can ‘brighten up’ a neighborhood in different ways by means of an object like the Sunseeker. After all, the Sunseeker is not just a light installation; it must become a place where people meet, a place where people will start talking and what people will remember the next day. What we do wonder, after reading their communication plan and other background information, to what extent the neighborhood is involved in the process of the Sunseeker. It seems as if this idea arose not from the needs of the stakeholders in the neighborhood, but from the needs of external parties. Unfortunately, we have not yet had the opportunity to talk to VANTOT. Hopefully, this conversation will take place in the near future, so that we know the extent to which the stakeholders are or can be involved with the Sunseeker and any other ideas they have.

NUL ZES: NUL ZES is a collective of creative professionals. With a great diversity of disciplines, they create a multidisciplinary collective. Together they create the best working environment and the coolest places in the city to party, inspire, and connect. They strive to work together and meet each other in complete freedom, openness, and tolerance (NUL ZES, n.d.).

NUL ZES has also been active in the Emmasingelkwadrant. To investigate what the ideal experience of the Victoria Park should be according to the city and local residents, NUL ZES placed themselves in the future park about two years ago. Through in-depth interviews, street discussions, and neighborhood meetings, they tried to capture the imagination of the future users of the park: “The park is finished. You step out your front door in the morning. What do you see, what do you hear, what do you smell?”. They spoke with local residents, potential visitors, entrepreneurs, and other interested parties. With the rules of "Design thinking", they triggered everyone to think about their desires for the Victoria Park. How would you like to use the park? What should be made possible? How do you want to experience the park in 2020? The new green hotspot of Down Town Eindhoven must become a place where everyone feels welcome.

What we can learn from their approach is that during this research NUL ZES was aware that the experience of a place is very personal and therefore difficult to capture in a general picture. Imagining a park that is not even there yet, together with local residents, made the task even more difficult. By means of stimulating interventions, they aim to stretch the imagination in order to gain insight into the needs of the future users of the park. We will have to map out the needs too, only they focused on the future and we will focus on the now. The tools they use, such as Design Thinking, are also tools that we could include in our process (Gemeente Eindhoven, 2019).

What are the useful models/theories?

We have not yet decided which models and theories we will use; we want to trust the process. We do have possible options that we would like to explain briefly. We started flipping through the book Community: The Structure of Belonging. In the first part of the book there was a piece that immediately caught our attention because it fits well with the aim of our project:

‘’The essential challenge is to transform the isolation and self-interest within our communities into connectedness and caring for the whole. The key is to identify how this transformation occurs. We begin by shifting our attention from the problems of community to the possibility of community. We also need to acknowledge that our wisdom about individual transformation is not enough when it comes to community transformation. So, one purpose here is to bring together our knowledge about the nature of collective transformation. A key insight in this pursuit is to accept the importance of social capital to the life of the community. This begins the effort to create a future distinct from the past’’.

The need to create a structure of belonging grows out of the isolated nature of our lives, our institutions, and our communities. To create a sense of belonging is a particular challenge for cities. Cities are characterized by unsafe and troubled. Those we label ‘’ex-offenders,” or “homeless,” or ‘’at-risk’’ or “disabled,” are the most visible people who struggle with belonging. Next to that is isolation and apartness also a wider condition of modern life. The result of our disconnection and detachment is not only our isolation and loneliness but also the fact that there are too many people in our communities whose gifts remain on the margin. Filling the need for belonging is a community problem, and not only a personal struggle for connection. Community calls for us to acknowledge our interdependence and offers the promise of belonging (Block, 2008).

Asset Based Community Development: What makes community building so complex, is that it occurs in an infinite number of small steps, sometimes in quiet moments that we notice out of the corner of our eye. It calls for us to treat as important many things that we thought were incidental. The key to creating or transforming community, then, is to see the power in the small but important elements of being with others.

John McKnight is THE person if you are talking about understanding the nature of the community and what builds it. The approach Asset Based Community Development that he has developed, focuses on all assets that people can use locally to improve their living conditions. These assets are present but are only useful if they are actually used. This happens when assets are interconnected. Asset Based Community Development is a methodology for the sustainable development of communities based on their strengths and potentials. Building Communities from the Inside Out, a path toward finding and mobilizing a community’s assets from John L. Mcknight and John P. Kretzmann (1993) and the manual Wijkontwikkeling op eigen kracht, an edited translation of this book, could be both useful for us to use and to see how we can apply the Asset Based Community Development approach in practice.

Design Research Method(s) – Appreciative Inquiry & Stakeholder Mapping: We will certainly be using a number of Design Research methods. Which one we will use depends on our process. So at this point, we haven't decided which methods to use. We already know that Appreciative Inquiry is a perfect fit with our challenge and the Asset Based Community Development approach. Appreciative Inquiry can be considered as a philosophy, a worldview. To appreciate means literally to value and recognize the strength of something. Inquiry means trying to discover and understand it. So it actually means looking for the best in people, organizations, and communities. Finding the strengths that really give life when the situation is at its best. One of the principles from Appreciative Inquiry that we can maybe use in our process is that human systems move in the directions of the questions that are asked. The whole process of asking positive questions will make people engaged and stimulate thinking about those questions. This will create energy and shift in that certain direction. Talking about the questions could be an Appreciative Inquiry process and change in itself. Appreciative Inquiry is social constructionism in its true form (Nieuwenkamp, 2013).

Besides Appreciative Inquiry, we also use the Design Research Method Stakeholder Mapping. Stakeholder mapping is used to give a clear, visual overview of different stakeholders involved in a project. It helps to decide on the communication strategy that will be applied. A stakeholder map shows the interest and power of every stakeholder in such a way that it becomes easier to anticipate the situation. We use the online tool KUMU to visualize this.

Welfare Mix: As explained earlier, we will use the Welfare Mix to define the system or systems in which our challenge resides. Since we have already discussed the Welfare Mix in detail, we will not discuss it in depth again. However, on the first of May 2020, a meeting from research institute Drift was organized with the title "co-creating drink". This Drift meeting was devoted to people after Corona. The central point was that it is now important to think and speak out about society and the economy after Corona. The idea was for decades that the market was leading. But for a long time now, a third movement has emerged that comes from cooperatively or from the 'commons': social initiatives and innovations in which civil servants, entrepreneurs, consumers, and researchers reinvent society together as citizens. Derk Loorbach, director of Drift, showed the model of the Welfare Mix. He said that we went from decades in which the state was leading, to a few decades in which the market was leading and the search now is: "how do we get to a society in which people are leading, so the community?’’ This is a search we can also learn from and contribute to during our project (Loorbach, 2020).

Double Diamond: As already mentioned in previous blogs, we use the Double Diamond model to structure the process of our project. This model applies as well that we do already elaborate on this model in detail more often, so we will not discuss it in depth again. The core of Double Diamond is a clear marking between strategy (discover and define) and execution (develop and deliver). Between understanding why and determining how and thereafter creating results. In this way, you come up with ideas and create your focus.

Four Levels of Thinking: Human interactions with the world occur at four levels. The first level is the level of the events, where people become aware of things in the world through a noticeable change. A common response to events is a reaction. However, as events represent only the symptoms of deeper problems, reaction to events often leads to firefighting behavior and generates quick fixes. Most measurements happen at the event level but are related to past occurrences. The next level of thinking is patterns, where a larger set of events are linked together. Patterns are more meaningful sources of information than events. Patterns show the changes and trends in data over an extended period of time. In fact, we learn to develop the ability to recognize complex patterns. Systemic structures are the third level which reveals how such patterns and trends affect and relate to one another. Systemic structures represent a much deeper level of thinking. It shows us how the interaction between various factors gives rise to the outcomes that are observed. Understanding how these factors interact is the critical thing at this level of thinking. The fourth level, mental models, is a deeper level of thinking that hardly ever comes to the surface. The mental model of individuals and organizations influence why things work the way they do. Mental models reflect the values, assumptions, and beliefs that we personally hold. They underlie our reasons for doing things the way we do. Mental models are important but generally remain obscure. It limits our collective understanding of issues and hence impeding the development of common vision and action and meaningful communications (Maani and Cavana 2007).

The four levels of thinking use the analogy of an iceberg, where the event level of thinking is only the tip. This is because events are the most visible part and often require immediate action and attention. However, we also want to look at the underlying three levels, the levels that are not immediately noticeable. It is interesting and important to discover what the underlying principles are in the Emmasingelkwadrant. By focusing on the underlying levels, we can discover the general themes and systems and see how we can connect them and use them in the best possible way. 

The goal-framing theory: This theory discusses goal-dependent framing (sometimes also called “multiple motives”), which are highly relevant for understanding people’s behavior regarding their environment. 

The theory accounts for people’s environmental behavior based upon three different levels of goals/motives which are called goal frames. The normative, gain, and hedonic goal frame all influence environmental behavior. The normative level relates best to pro-environmental goals which are often less individual-based than with the other two levels. The gain level is related to personal gain such as finances for example and the hedonic level is more related to personal pleasure. In general, multiple goal frames are active at the same time and are responsible for how people process information however, the different frames may not always be compatible. Therefore, the dominant goal frame may be influenced by those active in the background. (Lindenberg & Steg, 2007)

As Anke van Hal, the business university of Nyenrode’s professor of sustainable building explains, this theory can be used in the field of urban development and should lead to a fusion of interests thinking. This means that we should investigate which different motives inhabitants could have to work towards reaching a certain goal. She often sees opportunity areas in the middle ground between policy goals and more specific or personal goals of local residents. If we are able to create links between different goal frames we might work towards a mutual goal with different things at stake and from different perspectives. 

References 

Block, P. (2008). Community : The Structure of Belonging. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Costa, R. (2018, November 6). The Double Diamond model: what is it and should you use it? Retrieved from https://www.justinmind.com/blog/double-diamond-model-what-is-should-you-use/

Evers, A. and Laville, J.-L. (eds) (2004). The third sector in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Gemeente Eindhoven. (March, 2019). De beleving van het toekomstige victoriapark. Retrieved November 4, 2020, from file:///E:/NHTV/Fourth%20year/Community%20Design/Gemeente%20Eindhoven/Emmasingelkwadrant/Victoriapark_Publicatie_Digitaal_190225.pdf

Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: a path toward finding and mobilizing a community's assets. Evanston, IL : Chicago, IL: Asset-Based Community Development Institute, Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University.

Landelijk Samenwerkingsverband Aandachtswijken & Fontys Hogeschool Sociaal Werk Eindhoven. (n.d.). Wijkontwikkeling op eigen kracht. Budel, NB: Drukkerij Vos. Retrieved 8 November, 2020, from file:///E:/NHTV/Fourth%20year/Community%20Design/Gemeente%20Eindhoven/Theories/ABCD_2009.pdf

Lindenberg, S. Steg, L. (2007) Normative, Gain and Hedonic Goal Frames Guiding Environmental Behavior. University of Groningen. Retrieved 9 November 2020, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38957645_Normative_Gain_and_Hedonic_Goal_Frames_Guiding_Environmental_Behavior 

Loorbach, D. (2020). Nederland na Corona 7: De mens na Corona. Retrieved 8 November, 2020, from https://drift.eur.nl/nederland-na-corona-7-de-mens-na-corona/

Maani, K. and Cavana, R. (2007) Systems Thinking and Modelling − Managing Change and Complexity. 2nd edition, Pearson Education, Prentice Hall. Retrieved 8 November, 2020, from file:///E:/NHTV/Fourth%20year/Community%20Design/Gemeente%20Eindhoven/Emmasingelkwadrant/eserv.php.pdf

Nieuwenkamp, E. (2013). Design Research. Retrieved 8 November, 2020, from https://buas.libguides.com/designresearch

NUL ZES. (n.d.). Mission - nulzes. Retrieved November 4, 2020, from http://nulzes.info/about/?lang=nl

VANTOT. (n.d.). About. Retrieved November 4, 2020, from https://vantot.com/about/

Vital Zone Institute. (n.d.). Vital Zone. Retrieved November 4, 2020, from http://www.vitalzone.eu/home.php