Introduction

Urban expansion in Brazil is primarily driven by land division processes such as subdivisions, land partitioning, and gated communities (Rigatti, 2002). In low-income peripheral areas, this process is often characterised by informality or inadequate infrastructure (Corrêa, 1989). Housing programmes like Programa Minha Casa Minha Vida (PMCMV), launched in 2009, have played a central role in this process, promoting the construction of large housing complexes (Cardoso, 2013). While PMCMV has reduced the housing deficit, Brazil’s housing production model is often criticised for prioritising quantitative targets over spatial quality (Logsdon; Fabrício, 2020), resulting in monofunctional, standardised projects located in peripheral areas with poor infrastructure and liveability (Amore; Shimbo; Rufino, 2015; Ayoub et al., 2019; Martins et al., 2021). The lack of quality in public spaces and urban amenities in SHP directly impacts residents’ dissatisfaction, leading to low retention rates and failing to contribute to user well-being (Araujo; Villa, 2020).

Despite research identifying key requirements for healthier urban spaces (Carmona, 2019; UN-Habitat, 2020), their practical application remains limited. There are many reasons for this. The industry often relies on belief rather than evidence (Brown; Corry, 2011), with a culture of “non-reporting” limiting the evaluation of completed projects and the refinement of design practices (Stanitsa; Hallett; Jude, 2024). Furthermore, urban legislation tends to be generic, providing little guidance on the design of public spaces, leading to ambiguity in the design process (Silva; Cabrera; Hirota, 2024).

Moreover, evaluations of social housing predominantly concentrate on quantitative metrics, such as the number of families served and reductions in housing deficits, often overlooking qualitative aspects. When considering occupant satisfaction, it seldom addresses crucial factors like urban integration, service accessibility, or environmental and psychological comfort (Kowaltowski et al., 2013).

Also, the absence of public participation in SHP results in impersonal projects disconnected from residents’ needs, prioritising cost reduction over quality (Biderman; Hiromoto; Ramos, 2018; Mandola; Imai, 2020). Post-occupancy evaluations and studies capturing SHP users (Araujo; Villa, 2020; Conceição; Imai; Urbano, 2015; Kowaltowski; Granja, 2011) highlight the importance of public areas and environments with natural elements of housing developments are fundamental to residents as the neighbourhood amenities. Integrating user feedback into project development has the potential to improve housing quality, promoting well-being for residents and social benefits for the public sector (Dalpino et al., 2020; Kowaltowski et al., 2024).

However, architects often rely on personal experience rather than empirical evidence when making design decisions, creating a disconnect between their perspectives and those of users. While client information, social research, and feedback are valuable, they remain underutilised (Darke, 1984). The architectural design process traditionally involves formal and informal methods, often influenced by experience-based and intuition-driven practices. Despite various formal design processes, the systematic integration of scientific evidence remains novel and crucial for enhancing design outcomes (Cushing; Miller, 2020; Brandt; Chong; Martin, 2010). The lack of evidence-based practices hinders the ability to make informed decisions, impacting the reliability and repeatability of design processes. Furthermore, the lack of transparent methods necessitates more rigorous approaches to ensure that evidence-informed decisions are clear to all stakeholders (Hjort; Martin; Troelsen, 2018). Communication challenges in architectural projects arising from complex designs, diverse stakeholders, and conflicting priorities exacerbate these issues (Criado-Perez et al., 2020; Mossad; Othman; Harinarain, 2023).

Nevertheless, the lack of a structured, evidence-based approach to urban planning has limited the development of high-quality environments in SHPs. This failure to incorporate design requirements and evidence into decision-making emphasises a significant gap in SHP, reinforcing the need for evaluators and designers to systematically integrate scientific evidence into the design process to ensure more effective and sustainable outcomes. In this sense, this study seeks to address the following questions: How does the design process of social housing subdivisions occur? What evidence-based design evaluation methods can support social housing projects?

This paper addresses these gaps by investigating evaluation methods for social housing projects, focusing on their potential to support participatory design and multidisciplinary decision-making. It evaluates urban project assessment tools informed by evidence-based design (EBD) principles. Therefore, this study aims to examine how evaluation tools can support participatory design and multidisciplinary decision-making in SHPs, identifying key stakeholders, reviewing the literature, and analysing existing assessment methods.

Evidence-Based Design (EBD)

Evidence-based design is a decision-making method that relies on rigorous, reliable research evidence to optimise the design process and benefit clients (Ahrentzen, 2006; Hamilton; Watkins, 2008; Phiri, 2015). In the 1980s, EBD adapted principles from the medical field, where decisions are based on research evidence into effective treatments (Codinhoto et al., 2009; Davoudian, 2019). As a result, EBD has consistently led to better design outcomes (Ballard, 2008). The success of EBD in healthcare, demonstrated by its widespread use in designing healthcare facilities (Davoodi et al., 2017; Phiri, 2015; Singh; Lillrank, 2017), provides a solid foundation for adapting this approach to other sectors, particularly social housing, where a user-centred approach is essential.

EBD enables effective collaboration between clients and users by systematically understanding the requirements of end users (Davoodi et al., 2017). The existing link between the evidence-based project method and Lean comes as a transparent process that identifies and delivers value-added activities while recognising those that do not generate value (Singh; Lillrank, 2017). Lean Construction recommends focusing on collaboration between stakeholders, evaluation and evidence in the early stages of the design process (Emmitt; Sander; Christoffersen, 2005). EBD can enhance project quality and provide added value to clients, benefiting them significantly (Brandt; Chong; Martin, 2010). It is also crucial for managing the process as it helps to make trade-offs, avoid waste, reduce costs or justify design decisions (Ahrentzen, 2006). User feedback can also be utilised to evaluate and improve design solutions through EBD (Davoodi et al., 2017).

In addition to healthcare, EBD principles have been applied to learning environments, workplaces, commerce, adaptive reuse, historic preservation and urban lighting design (Hamilton; Watkins, 2008; Cushing; Miller, 2020; Davoudian, 2019). Shi (2024) investigates the application of EBD in urban design studios and demonstrates that this approach strengthens the rationale behind design decisions, promotes informed innovation, and fosters interdisciplinary collaboration. This highlights the importance of combining quantitative and qualitative data and involving stakeholders to evaluate the effectiveness of proposals. Additionally, evidence-based decision-making in public policy offers advantages. This approach helps avoid policy failures rooted in ideology and ensures that policies address real citizen needs and urgent issues. It also facilitates information sharing among stakeholders and can improve social determinants. Evidence-based policies are based on scientific evidence and can be gathered before or during decision-making. They also support the evolving needs of stakeholders and validate policies. Finally, they provide insights into program workings and impact, leading to behavioural transformations in government service delivery organisations (Mills et al., 2022). In the 1990s, the UK government implemented design quality policies and improved work practices to achieve high standards. They created evidence-based design tools and guidance to improve the procurement and design process, aiming to develop healing-supportive environments (Phiri, 2015).

However, the adoption of EBD in sectors beyond healthcare still finds significant challenges (Martin, 2014). Krizek, Forysth and Slotterback (2009) emphasise that, while EBD has been widely implemented in fields such as medicine, urban planning faces unique barriers, including resource limitations, accessibility of research, and the complexity of urban issues. Unlike medicine, where controlled experiments yield clear causal relationships, urban design necessitates a broader comprehension of social, political, and environmental factors. Nonetheless, research-based evidence often occupies a marginal role in decision-making. Krizek, Forysth, and Slotterback (2009) draw attention to that much of urban planning remains a ‘reflective craft,’ where negotiation and mediation prevail over scientific reasoning. They argue that systematically integrating evidence can enhance decision-making and elevate the quality of urban policies and housing projects (Krizek; Forysth; Slotterback, 2009).

Accordingly, Ahrentzen (2006) observes that, until then, EBD had not been widely applied to social housing, primarily due to the lack of translation of research into applicable design guidelines. For the author, the results of research and evidence need to be concise and aimed at the concerns of designers (Ahrentzen, 2006). Tsenkova (2021) reinforces this perspective by stressing that improving housing systems depends on aligning research, programmes, and partnerships to improve people’s outcomes. To this end, it is possible to apply tools and codify best standards and practices for the improvement process (Singh; Lillrank, 2017). This reflects a commitment to making the design more user-centred and evidence-based (Tsenkova, 2021).

This research investigates how evaluation tools can facilitate structured and systematic decision-making in SHPs, taking into account the potential alignment of these tools with EBD principles. In the context of urban design for SHP, adopting management and design assessment tools can support decision-making by enabling empirical data to be organised, interpreted, and used efficiently. These tools facilitate communication between designers, researchers, and stakeholders and integrate diverse sources of knowledge, ensuring that decisions are grounded in thorough analysis.

Design evaluation tools

In architecture, evaluation can refer to assessing the product, determining the value of all or part of the built environment, or evaluating the process, which may involve design, construction, or management (Voordt; Wegen, 2005). The design process is inherently iterative, characterised by cycles of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Lawson, 2011). Evaluations can be conducted at various stages, such as during a designer’s decision-making self-assessment or post-occupancy evaluations (POEs), which provide valuable feedback for future projects (Kowaltowski et al., 2013). Overall, the evolution of EBD demonstrates its effectiveness across a wide variety of sectors, suggesting a promising potential for its broader adoption in architectural design processes beyond healthcare.

Evaluation involves comparing supply and demand. Demand refers to stakeholders’ expectations, desires, objectives, and preferences directly through the program of needs, legislation, and standards or subjectively to individuals related to their values (Voordt; Wegen, 2005). There is also a great diversity of values in projects involving multiple stakeholders. Therefore, having clarity in the process and clarifying customer requirements through project evaluations is essential (Sahadevan; Varghese, 2022). Design decisions consider emotions, intuition, judgments, prejudices, social ideals, norms, values, and arguments. Moreover, evaluating the built environment or the design process can help understand the motives and expectations of the different stakeholders behind decisions (Voordt; Wegen, 2005).

However, evaluation and analysis procedures, especially on an urban scale, are often applied during data collection and at the end of proposals and do not help decision-making throughout the design process (Beirão, 2012). Evidence-based evaluation tools are essential for establishing consistent standards that lead to better practices, especially in complex projects like social housing. Furthermore, employing evidence-based design assessment tools helps codify standards and practices to drive the continual improvement of design processes (Singh; Lillrank, 2017). Hence, they must be integrative, dynamic, interactive, user-friendly, communicative, and analytical to aid decision-making (Beirão, 2012; Lawson, 2011). Evaluation tools support decision-making as they are integrated with projects, stakeholders and planners (Lützkendorf; Lorenz, 2006). Therefore, to be transparent and open to interpretation, evaluation results must be quickly and easily accessible to clients, designers, users and others involved in the design process (Voordt; Wegen, 2005).

Lützkendorf and Lorenz (2006) emphasise essential features of evaluation tools: they must be accessible and easy to use, they must provide results that can be interpreted using theories and evidence, they must be able to show correlates and case studies for the solutions, they must document results and produce reports that serve as the basis for process decisions, and they must allow information to be processed at different stages of decision making in the design process (Lützkendorf; Lorenz, 2006).

Finally, it is known that for an evaluation to occur, questions about what, why, how, when, for whom, and by whom it will be evaluated must be objective and explicit (Kowaltowski et al., 2013). Therefore, this research searched for project evaluation tools, such as models, evaluation systems, data analysis methods, criteria, themes and guidelines, case studies, and applications.

Methods

A workshop was conducted to analyse the decision-making process in SHP as part of a case study aiming to understand the phenomenon within a real-world context (Yin, 2003). The workshop was conducted with professionals from a mid-sized Brazilian city that hosts an institute of research and urban planning, along with a Municipal Housing Company responsible for promoting social housing. The objective was to understand the process of analysis and perception by the individuals responsible for designing, evaluating, and approving SHP while identifying key stakeholders.

The workshop was held on 24 June 2022 with 15 professionals to discuss a flexible tool supporting integrated multidisciplinary decision-making in urban subdivision projects for SHP¹. The participants and facilitators were selected based on their research background or professional experience in subjects related to SHPs and urban site layout plans. Additionally, professionals working in the public sector involved in activities related to the approval, design, or planning of social housing developments were invited (Table 1).

The participants were organised into three groups for discussion, and after each debate, the groups were reshuffled. Facilitators guided each round of discussion by posing relevant questions. The question for the first discussion was: What works well and what does not in a land subdivision plan? The participants discussed for 30 minutes during each round. Afterwards, the participants changed their groups, and the discussion about the design process of SHP developments began with the question: How does the design process for SHP developments operate? The findings of each discussion were summarised on post-it notes and shared among the groups, with facilitators providing a summary after each debate for the other groups. The notes were organised by themes based on the key points of each discussion (Figures 1 and 2). This result was presented to the participants and discussed again with all groups together.

In the third discussion, facilitator F2 presented the participants with examples of tools used in the United Kingdom to assist in healthcare design, such as the Achieving Excellence Design Evaluation - AEDET Evaluation Toolkit. The facilitator had experience with cases where these tools were implemented. Subsequently, the participants were asked whether design assessment tools based on evidence could be effective and what the requirements for such a tool would be to support the SHP development process?

Following the workshop discussions and the exploration of EBD concepts, it became evident that management tools have the potential to support decision-making in the design of urban spaces for SHP. Consequently, an exploratory literature review was undertaken to identify tools that facilitate SHP evaluation. The search for the tools was guided by criteria identified during the workshop and through a literature review, which included previous publications (Kowaltowski et al., 2013; Lützkendorf; Lorenz, 2006; Moazzen et al., 2013; Sharifi; Murayama, 2013) addressing design evaluation tools in the contexts of neighbourhoods, social housing, and buildings.

The selection criteria for tools included flexibility for application in urban contexts, particularly for social housing developments, and adaptability to different stages of the project cycle to support continuous decision-making. Accessibility and ease of use were prioritised to ensure the tools were clear and easy to apply and understand. Graphical representation and clarity of results were emphasised to enable intuitive visualisation and comparison of information. Stakeholder communication and integration were also key, facilitating dialogue among stakeholders and involving end-users in the process.

Additionally, they needed to address social and quality dimensions, such as safety, social integration, access to opportunities, and process quality. Documentation and decision-making support were essential to ensure results were documented and used to balance the trade-off. The tools were also expected to promote best practices and quality criteria, go beyond technical regulations, and prioritise decisions by focusing on user needs. These criteria collectively aimed to ensure that the selected tools were practical and efficient and capable of fostering inclusive, evidence-based, and user-centred design processes for social housing projects.

Finally, the tools were identified, selected, and discussed to evaluate their applicability to participatory design and multidisciplinary decision-making in SHPs. This analysis aimed to assess their alignment with EBD principles, examining both their strengths and limitations and determining to what extent they address the challenges identified in the previous discussions. Additionally, the evaluation considered their potential to support stakeholder engagement, organise empirical data, and enhance structured decision-making processes in SHP development. After that, the key challenges in SHP design were systematised and discussed, with suggestions for the application of tools to address each identified issue and support the decision-making process.

Results and discussion

The workshop discussion provided an opportunity to summarise and understand the perceptions of those responsible for designing, evaluating, and approving social housing projects while identifying key stakeholders.

During discussions regarding the effectiveness of the site layout plan, participants emphasised questions about social interest: What constitutes social interest, and who is it meant to serve? The group addressed the minimum regulatory constraints and debated whether these regulations were sufficient to assure quality and to whom they benefit. A primary concern was the lack of user-centred focus, which can significantly impact the quality of life, including living costs, housing conditions, and access to public services. Previous studies have addressed similar challenges. For example, in SHPs, cost constraints often lead to compromised value for end-users, a recurrent issue designers and stakeholders face (Ruiz et al., 2014). The balancing act between affordability and quality frequently results in reliance on standardised models, which limits design innovation and adaptation (Kowaltowski et al., 2019). Moreover, value perception is not equal; it varies by evaluator perspective, with producers often defining value as a balance between functionality and cost (Aragão; Hirota, 2016). Therefore, to improve social housing quality, tools are needed to account for varied stakeholder perceptions and prioritise user needs.

In the second round of discussions, the participants focused on the design process of SHP developments (Figure 1). The discussion’s main point was the stakeholders’ role and decision-making process. They highlighted that the user is often not considered, and decision-making is driven by the market, favouring profitability over other considerations. They also noted that in social housing developments, standardisation is prioritised to reduce costs and boost profits, sometimes at the expense of the project’s quality. Additionally, they mentioned the challenges faced by the public sector in finding construction companies willing to take on SHP projects due to low profits, lengthy processes, and ambiguous procedures, despite the public sector’s responsibility to ensure residents’ quality of life.

The participants also emphasised the complexities of the design and evaluation process, program and funding requirements, legislative issues, and the implementation process. Professionals noted that departments like health, education, and social assistance engage in the assessment during the guidelines phase by offering insights on project approval and facilitating improvements through the inclusion of additional stakeholders who can address user needs. However, they remark that this involvement increases the complexity of the process and leads to communication, collaboration, and decision-making issues, ultimately prolonging the process.

The literature shows that involving stakeholders in the design process is essential to identifying and understanding the values relevant to each construction project (Thomson et al., 2003). However, involving multiple stakeholders with varied interests adds complexity to construction processes, often requiring collaborative interaction to achieve desired outcomes (Serugga; Kagioglou; Tzortzopolous, 2020). Additionally, communicating architectural projects has become more complex due to advanced technology and the involvement of many stakeholders, which has led to insufficient communication, ineffective management of design requirements, and a lack of client feedback (Norouzi et al., 2015).

During the third discussion, the suggestion was made to implement a tool to assist decision-making for SHP projects (Figure 2). Participants were shown potential tools utilised in other contexts and were invited to provide their opinions on the tool’s usefulness, the types of tools that would be most suitable, and the essential criteria these tools should fulfil to support SHP project development effectively.

Participants indicated that tools should be adaptable to accommodate cities of all sizes and various types of projects. A flexible tool that integrates into the entire process cycle was also highlighted as a requirement by the participants. Additionally, the tool should encompass questions and guidelines that encourage best practices and suggest quality criteria that extend beyond mere regulations and technical feasibility. It must facilitate communication between stakeholders and clients, incorporating scoring to help balance competing priorities while ensuring user requirements are taken into account. A clear decision-making hierarchy should be established to prioritise user needs. They also emphasised the importance of involving the user, or a group of users, early in the process to capture user requirements. The tool can aid in documenting the process and assist new construction companies in reducing the time spent, which means accelerating the streamlining process for constructors, the public sector, and clients (Figure 2). When asked about the potential effectiveness of the tools, the participants agreed but asserted that a cultural change is necessary for successful implementation.

In an international context, Stanitsa, Hallett, and Jude (2024) interviewed UK professionals to study the evidence-based application of design to inform building and urban design decisions. The participants stressed the importance of clearly defining and communicating the design process, including potential methodologies. This allows designers to choose the most suitable methods for their projects and explain the benefits to clients, leading to discussions at the start of the process. Using modern analytics and methods in early design stages offers opportunities to make more informed decisions in ever-changing environments (Stanitsa; Hallett; Jude, 2024).

In this regard, Carney (2023) criticises traditional urban design practices for perpetuating inequalities and failing to systematically incorporate research-backed methods. This is particularly relevant to the challenges faced by SHP, where economic limitations frequently determine decisions instead of evidence focused on users. To address this issue, Carney proposes a convergent model that integrates various forms of evidence to improve accountability and equity in design choices. This strategy could greatly enhance the use of EBD in social housing initiatives by ensuring that assessment tools adequately reflect the complexities of urban and social dynamics.

Kowaltowski et al. (2013) stress that evaluations of social housing must consider the needs of individual residents, the support programs available, the housing products and their conditions, the housing units, the overall development, and their integration into the urban setting. Furthermore, they highlight that the results of these assessments rarely affect professional design or construction practices. The construction industry also often neglects research, resulting in lost chances to enhance social housing processes and products (Kowaltowski et al., 2013).

Moreover, according to the study conducted by Kowaltowski et al. (2019) on the Programa Minha Casa Minha Vida between 2010 and 2016, there are significant opportunities for discussing user satisfaction and value delivery that could be explored in future research. The study highlighted the lack of uniformity between evaluations, the absence of evaluation protocols, the wide variety of methods used, and the potential for better results from Post-Occupancy Evaluation research. It also suggested the development of a standard evaluation protocol, promoting interdisciplinary collaboration through innovative communication channels, and conducting research that compares different studies of mass social housing. The researchers emphasised that evaluation protocols are important for making meaningful comparisons (Kowaltowski et al., 2019).

Based on the issues and requirements raised by workshop participants and the literature, this research analysed and selected assessment design tools to facilitate the design process of SHP. The review found 12 instruments (Table 2), including frameworks, seals, post-occupancy evaluations, certifications, good practice guides and design evaluation tools.

Some tools that aim to improve design quality (Phiri, 2015) are AEDET and DQI. Others seek to integrate stakeholders into the design process, such as VALiD, SPeAR, One Planet Communities, Building for Life, and Place Standard Tool. Others are certification systems such as BREEAM Communities, which also have objectives of improvement and integration in the design process.

Most tools include qualitative indicators, often gathered through evaluation methods such as workshops, interviews, and questionnaires, with data filled in using Likert scales, traffic light scales or open and subjective questions. One Planet Communities and Building for Life serve as guides and do not present evaluation indicators, but they provide prescriptive design guidelines. Another two tools – DQI Design Quality Indicators (2014) and HQI Housing Quality Index– feature qualitative and quantitative indicators that complement each other through scores and open questions.

To support the design and decision-making process, the tools must be accessible, user-friendly, and capable of providing interpretable results based on theories and evidence. They should also present correlates and case studies for the solutions, document the results, generate reports informing the decisions in the process, and be able to process information at different stages of decision-making in the design process (Lützkendorf; Lorenz, 2006). Moazzen et al. (2013) add that design evaluation tools must be systematic, flexible, and efficient in terms of time and cost. Table 3 shows the tools, their requirements for use, the design phase in which those tools can be applied, and the advantages and limitations of their use.

In addition, the graphical representation of the results should enable various levels of aggregation and information (Lützkendorf; Lorenz, 2006). This will facilitate comparison between the different criteria (Kowaltowski et al., 2013; Lützkendorf; Lorenz, 2006) and stakeholder results, helping to understand the various perspectives on the project (Gil; Duarte, 2013), thereby aiming to make decisions that meet the requirements of the project’s end users.

The assessment results must be translated into design guidelines, standards or good practice examples and linked to quality aspects (Voordt; Wegen, 2005). They should also consider the social dimensions of the project, the quality of the process, operation, management, location and access to opportunities, safety and social integration (Lützkendorf; Lorenz, 2006). Figure 3 represents an output of the results of the Place Standard Tool - Design Version, which shows and justifies the importance of the criteria for each stakeholder and the impact the project could have. This holistic view of the characteristics of the place can help the designer make decisions (The Scottish Government, 2022). The assessment seeks to understand each stakeholder’s perception of the issues by providing spaces for discussion and feedback. It complements the comments by assigning a score reflecting on the problems based on evidence drawn from research. It aids the decision-making process by giving the assessment an overview of all the criteria.

The AEDET tool (NHS Estates, 2008) has three dimensions for evaluation: impact, quality and functionality. Impact comprises four categories: character and innovation, form and materials, staff and patient environment, and urban and social integration. It aims to “create a sense of place and contribute positively to the lives of those who live on and use the site and its neighbours” (NHS Estates, 2008, p.16). To this end, it considers issues related to human scale, landscape, legibility, well-being, attractiveness and aesthetics, and the development’s contribution to its locality, among others. Concerning quality, the categories analysed are performance, engineering, and construction, and they aim to assess the physical spaces and components of the buildings and project, as well as their management and sustainability.

Finally, functionality assesses the use, access, and space categories to understand whether the project fulfils its purpose and facilitates or inhibits people’s activities and functions. (NHS Estates, 2008). The Design Quality Indicator (DQI) tool (Design Quality Indicator, 2014) also includes the same categories as the AEDET tool, with DQI for Health (DQIfH) replacing AEDET. The AEDET tool also ensures communication and better decision-making by clarifying the decision-making process and each stakeholder’s weight to each criterion (Figure 4).

Interaction between different stakeholders to make decisions and trade-offs requires communication between team members. To increase communication in decision-making, involving the clients in the process and communicating the benefits for all the stakeholders (Stanitsa; Hallett; Jude, 2024). Often, and especially in SHP projects, users are not involved in the design process, and stakeholders analyse their interests separately. Therefore, it is possible and necessary for evaluation tools also to become communication instruments. When including the different stakeholders in the process, it is essential to understand each one’s subjectivity, not only because of the results that will be extracted but also because of the evaluation process, which must be didactic and accessible to participate.

However, to improve design processes and, consequently, the built environment, it is necessary to realise that there is a difference between the mandatory and optional criteria taken into account by the tools, especially in terms of the social and environmental aspects of projects (Fawzi et al., 2015; Sharifi; Murayama, 2013). An example of this problem is contained in the Caixa Selo Azul tool (Caixa Economica Federal, 2022), in which most of the criteria used for urban quality are optional. The mandatory criteria have minimum quality indicators, some already required by law, such as basic infrastructure and equipment at 2.5 kilometres. However, given the Brazilian reality, as shown in the workshop by the participants, sometimes even the minimum quality requirements are not met. Optional criteria are often left aside because they represent costs for the developer. The criteria, the evaluation process itself, and consequently, the quality and improvement of projects are also challenges. Lützkendorf and Lorenz (2006) have already warned that the impact of the tools may be different if they continue to be voluntary applications or if they become compulsory, whether due to legislation or other stakeholders such as funding agencies, for example.

The SPeAR tool provides a complete overview of each indicator, which introduces the problems caused by the lack of a particular criterion and the importance of considering it in projects. In the case of the “Community facilities” criterion, the introduction shows the effects of discrimination and social exclusion, as well as lack of access to opportunities and services if the criterion is not considered. Best and worst-case scenarios are also presented for the requirements and issues that should be considered in the design.

The tools present complex criteria, which are translated into questions that seek to identify the characteristics defining the constructs. These aspects are assessed using scales that indicate the level of agreement with statements or binary scores indicating the presence or absence of specific criteria and whether they respond to certain parameters.

In England, an audit tool for housing developments was applied in 2019 to assess the quality of the external design of housing developments and establish a baseline for measuring the quality progress of other developments in the future (Carmona et al., 2020). The evaluation is based on the concept of quality and value of place (Carmona et al., 2020) and uses criteria of community and environment, character of the place, streets, car parking and pedestrian experience, project detailing, and management. The criteria and variables are based on evidence that elucidates which attributes of the built environment can deliver value to the place through economic, environmental, social and health benefits (Carmona.; Urban Design Group; Place Alliance, 2019). Based on the evidence, a checklist called “The Ladder of Place Quality” was created to be a simple tool for making decisions and evaluating housing development projects. It seeks to clarify which attributes should be avoided and which should be incorporated to generate more value for the project (Figure 5).

Finally, some tools require an external facilitator for their application. This criterion restricts the tool’s use. In addition, such processes generate costs and may not be viable when considering social housing. This reality underscores the importance of developing tools that are not only effective but also accessible and low-cost, ensuring they can be widely adopted in practice.

Despite its widespread application in various fields, adopting EBD in social housing projects still faces significant challenges. This gap stresses the need for systematically integrating scientific evidence into the design process to meet user needs better and improve project outcomes. The limited adoption of available tools can be attributed to market-driven priorities, unclear regulations, and insufficient collaboration, highlighting the need for more transparent and evidence-based processes.

The findings, summarised in Table 4, provide a clear overview of the current problems and propose targeted solutions, including specific tools to aid in distinct phases of the project. The analysis led to practical recommendations for optimising these tools and strategies to improve decision-making, enhance urban space quality, and achieve more sustainable and user-centred outcomes in SHP design.

However, one of the key obstacles to implementing evidence-based practices is the availability and applicability of research. Krizek, Forysth and Slotterback (2009) point out that while some urban studies provide valuable insights, they are often disconnected from real-world practice due to their complexity or specificity to a particular context. To address this, they advocate for tools synthesising research findings into actionable guidelines, similar to health sector systematic reviews (Krizek; Forysth; Slotterback, 2009).

Also, evidence-based planning should not be seen as a rigid, technocratic approach but rather as a flexible framework that accommodates multiple types of knowledge (Krizek; Forysth; Slotterback, 2009). However, as Stichler (2016) and Pati (2011) suggest, the successful implementation of EBD requires not only rigorous research but also structured evaluation mechanisms to ensure evidence is both credible and applicable.

Developing such tools for social housing projects would allow practitioners to access and apply evidence without requiring extensive research expertise. This study reinforces the need for a refined assessment framework in social housing projects, integrating diverse sources of knowledge while maintaining scientific rigour. The development of standardised evidence evaluation protocols could enhance the consistency and impact of EBD in urban planning and architecture.

According to Martin (2009), the adoption of EBD progresses through an innovation-decision process, where designers move from gaining knowledge to complete implementation. It is vital to address cultural and economic barriers to make EBD the norm instead of an outlier (Martin, 2009).

In social housing, where limitations are more pronounced, cultivating a culture based on evidence through gradual investments and cross-disciplinary cooperation is key to ensuring a lasting impact. Despite barriers to full implementation—like political constraints, resource limitations, and urban complexity—EBD provides opportunities to improve transparency, accountability, and effectiveness in planning decisions. By adopting EBD for social housing, policies and designs can better meet residents’ needs and long-term sustainability goals. This approach enhances the quality and responsiveness of social housing projects toward residents’ requirements. Incorporating evidence-based guidelines, as suggested by Forsyth, Salomon and Smead (2017), reinforces the relationship between public health, urban planning, and architecture, aiding in creating healthier and more sustainable neighbourhoods (Forsyth; Salomon; Smead, 2017).

Conclusion and practical recommendations

This study investigates the SHP design process and the potential use of evidence-based design principles through assessment design tools. By identifying key stakeholders, reviewing the literature, and identifying and analysing tools, the study identified and discussed how evidence-based design assessment tools can support participatory multidisciplinary decision-making processes, focusing on the urban scale of SHP

The workshop and the literature review showed that neglecting evidence and users’ needs is a frequent problem, especially in SHP. This gap between user requirements and design decisions is challenging in many industries and requires design management, support tools, and cultural practice improvements. Other studies have emphasised the importance of the feedback stage in housing design. This stage ensures that user requirements are effectively incorporated into developments. When adequately conducted, the feedback process reduces unsatisfactory results in evaluations. Designers, developers, and builders must constantly understand client requirements before the development of the SHP, and client requirements must be translated into design requirements.

This study identified design evaluation tools which has the potential to facilitate evidence-based decision-making by providing structured frameworks for assessing project quality, improving stakeholder communication, and considering user requirements. These tools offer the potential to assist design decisions by providing evidence and aligning design requirements with the needs of end-users.

The research also showed the importance of developing clear criteria for evaluating and guiding public planning and design, especially in SHP. Public authorities should prioritise systematic evidence-based processes that organise evidence relevant to the project’s context. Implementing a more structured and evidence-based approach to both design and evaluation requires a cultural shift. This change could begin in the public sector, where public investment in design should mandate a transparent, evidence-based process from contractors to drive change. This process can be supported by training, transparent communication, and collaboration among researchers, policymakers, and practitioners.

Despite the contributions, some limitations need to be addressed. The research used a single case and a non-systematic literature review, which cannot generalise the SHP design processes. Also, regardless of the value of the tools identified, some of them require external facilitators and may not adapt to resource-constrained designs such as SHP. In this sense, there is a need for evaluation tools adapted to the socio-economic and cultural contexts of various regions, focusing on low-cost, accessible and easy-to-use solutions.

Future research should adapt these tools to local contexts, enhance stakeholder collaboration and communication, and strengthen the link between evidence-based practices and practical outcomes. Addressing these areas can significantly improve the design and implementation of social housing projects, resulting in user-centred and more qualified urban environments.

Acknowledgements

This study was financed by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001, the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), process n. 141164/2024-7 and the research project Uk Academies: Research Mobility – Fundação Araucária/Fundo Newton n. 180/2019.

References

Edited by

Publication Dates

History