Content uploaded by Daniel Marín-Vanegas
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Daniel Marín-Vanegas on Feb 28, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
DES IGNPRINC IPL ESA NDPRACTICES.COM
VOLUME # ISSUE #
Design Principles
and Practices
An International Journal — Annual Review
__________________________________________________________________________
The Habitat Intervention Design Process,
Part I, Model Foundations
From Ecology to Architecture as an
Interdisciplinary Transition
DANIEL FELIPE MARÍN VANEGAS
Accepted Manuscript
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES:
AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL—ANNUAL REVIEW
http://designprinciplesandpractices.com
ISSN: 1833-1874 (Print)
ISSN: 24735736 (Online)
https://doi.org/10.18848/1833-1874/CGP (Journal)
First published by Common Ground Research Networks in 2022
University of Illinois Research Park
60 Hazelwood Drive
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
Ph: +1-217-328-0405
http://cgnetworks.org
Design Principles and Practic es: An International Journal—Annual Review
is a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal.
COPYRIGHT
© 2022 (individual papers), the author(s)
© 2022 (selection and editorial matter),
Common Ground Research Networks
All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study,
research, criticism, or review, as permitted under the applicable
copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any
process without written permission from the publisher. For permissions
and other inquiries, please contact cgscholar.com/cg_support.
Common Ground Research Networks, a member of Crossref
EDITORS
Lorenzo Imbesi, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
Loredana Di Lucchio, University of Rome, Italy
MANAGING EDITOR
Helen Repp, Common Ground Research Networks, USA
ADVISORY BOARD
The Design Principles and Practices Research Network recognizes
the contribution of many in the evolution of the Research Network.
The principal role of the Advisory Board has been, and is, to drive
the overall intellectual direction of the Research Network.
A full list of members can be found at
https://designprinciplesandpractices.com/about/advisory-board.
PEER REVIEW
Articles published in Design Principles and Practi ces: An International
Journal—Annual Review are peer reviewed using a two-way anonymous
peer review model. Reviewers are active participants of the Design
Principles and Practices Research Network or a thematically related
Research Network. The publisher, editors, reviewers, and authors all
agree upon the following standards of expected ethical behavior, which
are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core
Practices. More information can be found at:
https://designprinciplesandpractices.com/journals/model.
ARTICLE SUBMISSION
Design Principles and Practic es: An International Journal—Annual Review
publishes annually.
To find out more about the submission process, please visit
https://designprinciplesandpractices.com/journals/call-for-papers.
ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING
For a full list of databases in which this journal is indexed, please visit
https://designprinciplesandpractices.com/journals/collection.
RESEARCH NETWORK MEMBERSHIP
Authors in Design Principles and Pract ices: An International Journal—
Annual Review are members of the Design Principles and Practices
Journal Collection or a thematically related Research Network.
Members receive access to journal content. To find out more, visit
https://designprinciplesandpractices.com/about/become-a-member.
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Design Principles and Practic es: An International Journal—Annual Review
is available in electronic and print formats. Subscribe to gain access to
content from the current year and the entire backlist.
Contact us at cgscholar.com/cg_support.
ORDERING
Single articles and issues are available from the journal bookstore at
https://cgscholar.com/bookstore.
HYBRID OPEN ACCESS
Design Principles and Practic es: An International Journal—Annual Review
is Hybrid Open Access, meaning authors can choose to make their
articles open access. This allows their work to reach an even wider
audience, broadening the dissemination of their research.
To find out more, please visit
https://designprinciplesandpractices.com/journals/hybrid-open-access.
DISCLAIMER
The authors, editors, and publi sher will not accept any legal responsibility fo r
any errors or omissions th at may have been made in this publication. The
publisher makes no warranty, e xpress or implied, with respect to the material
contained herein.
Accepted Manuscript
Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal –Annual Review
Volume #, Issue #, 20##, https://designprinciplesandpractices.com
© Common Ground Research Networks, Daniel Felipe Marín Vanegas,
All Rights Reserved. Permissions: cgscholar.com/cg_support
ISSN: 1833-1874 (Print), ISSN: 2473-5736 (Online)
https://doi.org/###################### (Article)
The Habitat Intervention Design Process, Part I,
Model Foundations: From Ecology to
Architecture as an Interdisciplinary Transition
Daniel Felipe Marín Vanegas,1 Universidad Nacional de Colombia sede Medellín, Colombia
Abstract: In the beginning, the notion of habitat had been conceived in life sciences and ecology studies fields.
Subsequently, it began to be extrapolated by housing researchers as a useful term applicable in urban-rural studies. As
shown, the habitat itself is an interdisciplinary concept that crosses and bridges several fields of knowledge, such as
natural sciences, like biology, and human sciences, like architecture, constituting an interdisciplinary transition. This
article poses the model foundations to integrate the Intervention Design Process (IDP) within a pedagogical model.
These foundations consist of chronologies that explain the transition suffered by the concept of habitat regarding
linguistical, theoretical, and pragmatical issues. After elaborating on the methodology, this article series starts with the
use of the term with its different meanings. Then, we develop the epistemological path of the notion of human habitat
with its inter- and trans-disciplinary transition. Ultimately, it closes with the path of the integrated sustainability related
to the multidimensional approach of the habitat that constitutes the basis of our model. At last, we conclude that this
transition fosters a more complex insight on the human intervention in nature and the built environment that overcomes
the simplistic insight of traditional housing projects. This research develops the process into three iterative phases: this
first article poses the problem (What) and its justification (Why), constituting the foundations of the model to therefore
show the implementation (How) of the methodological process in following articles.
Keywords: Human habitat, Built Environment, Design Process, Housing, Inter- and Transdisciplinarity,
Integrated Sustainability
Introduction
he notion of habitat was conceived in the life sciences and ecology studies fields since
the eighteenth century (Hall, Krausman, and Morrison, 1997). It later began to be
extrapolated by housing researchers as a useful term applicable in urban-rural studies.
The Habitat I Conference in 1976 was the first moment in which this concept from ecology
began to be used in the matter of human settlements (Echeverría et al. 2009). As is shown
below, “habitat” itself is an interdisciplinary concept that crosses and bridges several fields of
knowledge, such as natural sciences, like biology, and human sciences, like architecture (Odum
and Barrett 2005).
In the field of education, it has been shown how the housing problem was conceived in the
context of the industrial revolution that generated large migrations to the cities in the nineteenth
century, which in turn resulted in the need to build high-rise residential spaces in an
industrialized way (Fernández Wagner 2001). Until then, the construction of housing, which
had been carried out by the same inhabitants or peasants in rural areas, passed into the domain
of the urban, which required massive and specialized production. This in turn gave way to the
notion of social and minimal housing as it has been understood since the 1920s with the
functionalist vision of Klein (1980) framed in mechanistic Fordism that led to university
specializations, what we term here the industrial paradigm.
The specialization of knowledge that occurred in the industry with a division of labor into
departments and professions was later transferred from the industrial spheres to the academy. This
1 Corresponding Author: Daniel Felipe Marín Vanegas, Calle 59 A N° 63-20 Building N° 24 Office 104, School of
Construction, Faculty of Architecture, National University of Colombia, Medellín, Antioquia, 050034, Colombia.
email: dfmarinv@unal.edu.co
T
Accepted Manuscript
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL – ANNUAL REVIEW
deepened the departmental and disciplinary division in the universities and gave rise to the
emergence of the contemporary curricular programs: architecture, construction, civil,
environmental, and industrial engineering, among many others. However, as shown by Wagner
(2001), since the 1960s the academic community has overcome this functional-utilitarian insight
through an interdisciplinary approach to the problem of housing, which no longer focused on it as
a spatial-material technical object, but on its symbolism and its cultural dimension.
It is precisely in the 1970s when the concept of human habitat emerged in the UN Human
Settlements Program. And then, in the 1980s, the concept of the “Built Environment” was
coined at The Bartlett School of Architecture of London, leading to the subsequent transition
that UK schools of architecture had in rebranding themselves as Schools of the Built
Environment to better host interdisciplinary programs
This article develops the model foundations to therefore integrate the Intervention Design
Process (IDP) within a pedagogical model. These foundations consist of chronologies that
explain the transition suffered by the concept of habitat regarding linguistical, theoretical and
pragmatical issues. We rely on Vienni et al. (2022) to base our model on three iterative
integration phases: Knowing-What for understanding the problem, Knowing-Why for its
justification, and Knowing-How for the implementation of solutions.
After elaborating on the methodology, regarding the Knowing-What and Knowing-Why
phases, this article starts from the use of the term “habitat” with its different meanings. Then,
we develop the epistemological path of the notion of human habitat with its inter- and trans-
disciplinary transition. Ultimately, it closes with the path of the integrated sustainability that is
related to the multidimensional approach of the habitat that constitutes the basis of our model.
For the Knowing-How phase, Part 2 of this article (forthcoming) proposes the development of a
pedagogical model for the IDP and shows the outcomes of its implementation in six real-world
complex problems.
Methodology and Approach
Our methodological approach to developing the foundations of a model consists of multiple
literature reviews that we use from grounded theory to support the dimensions from which the
human habitat can be studied. In addition, these reviews were carried out with the objective of
developing chronologies, timelines, and theoretical frameworks that are useful for the
understanding of the habitat in an evolutionary way and from its conceptual path, all of this
while considering the linguistical issues and the language usage of the term.
We sought to understand the positions of several existing knowledge systems regarding the
issue of human habitat or the built environment, while answering the question of What? Table 1
systematizes our reviews in a matrix, by articulating them with the research questions that
motivated them, and with their respective outcomes, by coding and organizing them into stable
categories that allowed them to be studied (Charmaz 2014). In this way, we conducted several
literature reviews (1 to 6) trying to answer the research questions (What?/Why?/How?) that
supported the models, and whose answers were represented by states of the art,
chronologies/timelines, models, and statements (C, M, S). Thus, it is the matrix as a Categorical
Thinking method that allows us to organize dimensions, concepts, and variables into stable
categories (Freeman 2017) in order to consolidate a multidimensional model.
In order to justify this selection of dimensions that constituted the model, we base our
methodology on the “saturation method” of grounded theory (Charmaz 2006), which states that
theoretical saturation “is reached when the information collected does not contribute anything new
to the development of the properties and dimensions of the analysis categories” (Ardila-Suárez
and Rueda-Arenas 2013). Now, to relate grounded theory with the categorical thinking of
Freeman (2017), the dimensions were saturated from six categories with the following sample
sizes of literature reviewed: (1) studies of technique and technology: 51; (2) cultural studies,
Accepted Manuscript
MARIN VANEGAS: THE HABITAT INTERVENTION DESIGN PROCESS, PART I
evolutionary biology and ecology: 30; (3) multidimensional approaches in sustainability and ID-
TD: 21; (4) housing and habitat studies with literature for grounding the dimensions: 322; (5)
systems, complex and design thinking for teaching problem-solving: 47; (6) pedagogy studies: 35.
Section 3, “Model's Foundations: An Integration for Understanding Different Knowledge
Systems,” presents the development of this integration for understanding the problem.
Table 1: Literature Reviews, Research Questions and Outcomes
*Top referrers are presented here by topic among a larger global sample of referrers specified in this section below.
Categories are coded in parentheses to express their relationship with the questions of the same code.
Source: Marín-Vanegas
Accepted Manuscript
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL – ANNUAL REVIEW
Finally, to integrate the methods and models into graphic frameworks that could synthesize
them and represent the global process, we relied on diagrammatical thinking, which includes
not only the visual representation tools but also the question of articulation and its dynamics
(Freeman 2017). Therefore, we develop graphic models analogous to aesthetic metaphors such
as Deleuze and Guattari’s (1980) rhizome, Venn’s set diagrams (1880), and the Simondonian
transduction process (2015).
Model Foundations: Understanding Different Knowledge Systems
Linguistic Foundations: The Term of Habitat in Language Usage
To understand the semantic use of the word habitat we must review not only its etymology but
also its current use. According to the first definition of the Real Academia Española (RAE),
Habitat is the “place of appropriate conditions for an organism, species or animal or plant
community to live” (RAE 2022), from which what is named here as the biological-
environmental interpretation is derived; it is also defined there as an “environment particularly
suitable for someone’s personal tastes and needs,” from which the social-cultural dimension
follows; and finally, it is further defined by RAE as “constructed space in which man lives,”
(RAE 2022), which accounts for the functional-utilitarian interpretation (see Figure 1). We can
also find three meanings of the term in English that are similar to these: a biological one (since
1796), a socio-cultural one, and a technical one (Merriam-Webster 2022).
Figure 1: Rhizome-Based Model Based on Meanings of “Habitat” from RAE (2022) and Deleuze and Guattari (1980)
Source: Marín-Vanegas
This rhizome-based model shows various nodes and centers from which the habitat can be
studied. The choice of each node as a center is made based on the requirements of the process at
a given moment, allowing the center to be changed several times. It can be evidenced that the
same basic definitions of the word already represent the differentiation of terms that, after
integration, become characteristic of habitat understood as a complex system with multiple
dimensions:
Accepted Manuscript
MARIN VANEGAS: THE HABITAT INTERVENTION DESIGN PROCESS, PART I
1. Biological-environmental interpretation: this is the meaning imported from
ecology. This interpretation brings up the vital needs as a space condition to be
considered habitable. It is the biological level of the concept, together with the
influence of the environmental factor in this consideration.
2. Socio-cultural interpretation: this is the meaning given by the human sciences.
This second interpretation refers to the social and cultural context of the subjects.
This is the definition that has not been incorporated into the traditional
intervention.
3. Functional-utilitarian interpretation: this is the traditional definition under which it
intervenes from an instrumental vision. It refers to the functionality of what is
built and the use or exploitation that can be given to the matter and resources. It is
related to the spatial-material and the economic, as is the house isolated from its
surrounding environment.
Theoretical Foundations: The Path of the Notion of Human Habitat
First, it should be noted that the notion of the environment that the human has built on what is
called a first nature is interpreted here as a result of culture, a second nature (Parente 2010;
Espinal Pérez 2011); an ecology of a built environment that is also sometimes called
“artificiality” in a pejorative sense (Manzini 1996). But it can be understood that what exists is
an artificializing action of the human (Simondon 2007)—action that is, after all, still natural.
And this action can be executed, on natural or existing objects, to improve their performance
with a human utility, as occurs in genetic design in engineering, or the industrial design of raw
material processing; or on built objects, to intervene with a purpose, as occurs in the execution
and intervention design in construction and habitat (Carvajal 2013).
Thereby, such second nature is the technique, interpreted as the modification the human
makes of the physical or material nature surrounding it. As the anthropologist Leroi-Gourhan
(1943, 43) states from a biological perspective of his discipline, “At all times it is tangible that
the technical elements follow one another and organize themselves as living organisms and that
human creation, due to its continuity, traces universal creation,” referring, like Simondon, to the
fact that the technique that we build as humans is also a nature capable of constituting itself
“like living beings, in a process of emergence, development and evolution; that is, in an
ontogenesis” (Montoya 2004, 33). In this sense, both the notion and the phenomenon of the
human habitat seen from a historical and universal perspective can be understood from the
evolution of the earth and of humanity, as will be shown below.
However, before talking about the origin of the habitat as a phenomenon, it is necessary to
explain its origin as a concept. Initially, the notion of habitat was conceived in the fields of life
sciences and ecology studies at the end of the eighteenth century (Merriam-Webster, 2022) and
was consolidated at the beginning of the twentieth century (Hall, Krausman, and Morrison
1997). Subsequently, housing researchers began to extrapolate it as a useful term applicable in
urban-rural studies. Namely, the Habitat I Conference in 1976 was the first moment in which
this concept from ecology began to be used in the matter of human settlements (Echeverría et al.
2009). This is precisely how the concept of habitat arises in the studies of human residence,
architecture and housing studies; a path detailed in Figure 2.
Since the mid-fourteenth century, the term human dwelling has been used as analogous to
housing (Harper 2022). Meanwhile, the term habitat was officially coined barely a century ago,
first conceived as the niche of non-human animals (Grinnell 1917; Leopold 1933). After several
centuries, the concept of human housing, so used in the twentieth century, was labeled as “decent”
or “adequate” through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations 1948); but in
parallel, the notion of habitat continued to develop; indeed, in the middle of the last century, the
Accepted Manuscript
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL – ANNUAL REVIEW
ecological meaning of it was coined (Hutchinson 1957; Daubenmire 1968), placing it between the
systemic levels of the population and the biological community (Odum 1971).
Thus, while housing projects began to incorporate environmental design and surrounding
urban planning to the traditional spatial-material dimension (Darke 1978), ecologists conceived
of the multidimensional habitat that not only included the physical space that organisms occupy
but also their functional roles in the ecosystem and certain environmental variables such as pH,
humidity, temperature, etc. (Odum and Barrett 2005). In this way, the epistemological paths of
the ecological habitat and the human settlement have come together in recent decades with the
Habitat I, II, and III conferences that have been held every twenty years since 1976, and lately
with what is called the built environment (Chynoweth 2009), proposed here as an analog of the
human habitat. Figure 2 graphically details this chronological journey and its particularities.
Figure 2: The Path of the Scientific Notion of Human Habitat. A Two-Fold Timeline: Habitat versus Dwelling
Source: Marín-Vanegas
Then, returning to the evolutionary perspective of the origin of the habitat, we can affirm
that technique, as a human modification of the matter present in the environment, is made
possible through design understood as a collective practice framed in a culture (Parente 2010).
The act of design, therefore, supports a technical intelligence that transcends an instinctive one
in which there is no planning of what is created since there is no long-term memory (Espinal
Pérez 2011). Thus, when we speak of technique, reference is made here to what is built in the
civil industry, what is projected in architecture, what is manufactured by machines in the
industry, and in general, human action in the world, everything that is an object of design.
Among this construction of anthropic world, in addition to the culture that originates in
human societies, there are also the works that humans have conceived as the inventors they are:
the architecture that is their own, the machines and automated systems that simplify their times of
production, the tools that facilitate the satisfaction of their daily needs and, by way of synthesis,
the useful industry that we use to optimize the functions of our physical-body scheme.
In this sense, underpinning such second nature, design as an analog of human technique, is
also defined by Heskett (2005, 7) as “the human capacity to give forms to our environment
without precedents in nature, to serve our needs and give meaning to our lives,” incorporating
this notion to the theoretical body that allows us to understand human artificiality as another
kingdom of nature: the kingdom of the inorganic organized by the human (an organic being)
(Stiegler 2001), everything that has been designed.
Accepted Manuscript
MARIN VANEGAS: THE HABITAT INTERVENTION DESIGN PROCESS, PART I
Therefore, this built environment is the same human habitat, which although designed and
built, is still nature. The above is because the classic distinction between artificiality and
naturality (Simon 1996) is transcended from this approach. As Odum and Barrett (2005, 15)
state, the approach from ecology allows moving from “disciplinary reductionism to
transdisciplinary holism,” connecting natural sciences and human sciences in an “Integrative
Science” (Barrett 2001) that precisely stops opposing nature and humanity as if they were
different branches. This allows us to speak of human ecology (Smith and Smith 2007).
Other initiatives are framed in this direction and have been consolidated at a global level in
what is commonly tagged as “Sustainability Sciences” (Kates et al. 2001), “Consilience”
(Wilson 1999), “Interdiscipline” (Klein 1990), “Transdiscipline” (Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2008),
“Complex Thinking” (Morin 1994), and “Systems Thinking” (Midgley 2003); all of these
dealing with the unity of knowledge required to address the complex problems of the twenty-
first century. Initiatives such as Systemic Intervention (Midgley 2000) are related here to the
Intervention Design proposal of this research from a complex approach.
Following Heskett (2005), the design skill is only held by humans, allowing us to build our
habitat and distinguish civilization from nature. This approach shows how design is what
enables the emergence of the human habitat, and how this artificially constructed environment
is highlighted from others. Nevertheless, as Simondon (2015, 345) has shown, this distinction is
not based on nature or origin but on the degree or level of complexity development: “the
difference is of level rather than nature.” This distinction does not mean an absolute difference
in which human civilization would be assumed as alien to nature but rather represents a new
form of life, energy, and matter evolution; an evolutionary progress understood as complexity
increasement (Parente 2010) in the human species and cultures.
This is understood as a process of evolution by layers that represent the habitat dimensions.
Hence, we have built the chronology using a visual and logical model based on Simondon’s
transductive model of crystals growth (2015). Just as Simondon (2015) relates in his main work,
everything begins with the physical or matter individuation, and analogous to the crystals
growth model (Montoya 2019), everything continues through the development of successive
layers in which some serve as a base for others (Simondon 2015), where the latter, given a
moment, can become the first in a recurrent causality (Simondon 2013). This is the same story
that human evolution tells us in relation to its habitat, the biosphere, or planet earth (Stanley
1999), but also with its immediate ethological environment (GIFT 2001), as represented in the
graphic below in an amplifying reticular structure, whose description is as follows:
The model is built on a universal stacked Venn diagram (1880). The reading of the diagram
must start from the bottom without being interpreted as a linear chronology, but more as a
space-time context that places the milestones of human evolution on earth. To express the non-
linearity, the red arrows express the direction in which the layers develop but also the recurrent
causality of Simondon (curved arrows). The boundaries between layers are apparent. At the
same level in which culture emerges is technique, and after the emergence of these, multiple
dimensions appear that derive from it and that culminate in the current technological
development. In the end, the model expresses, through the Venn universal diagram, that there
are potential dimensions that we do not know about yet, which are in development, and cannot
be classified, expressing there are infinite elements in an endless evolution.
As can be seen in Figure 3, everything starts from the material or physical dimension with
the emergence of atoms and molecules, and with these, the natural environment of planet earth
constitutes the environmental dimension (Restrepo 2000). Then, with the individuation of living
beings (Simondon 2015), life emerges, the biological dimension, and finally with it, the
complex of dimensions that have accompanied it: societies (both animals and humans) and
cultures, both traits of the collective individuation (Simondon 2015).
Accepted Manuscript
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL – ANNUAL REVIEW
Figure 3 Transductive Layers Model for the Chronology of Humanity and Its Habitat in Evolutionary Studies
Source: Marín-Vanegas
It is of particular importance to note that once both—the social dimension, resulting from
the association of living beings with a common purpose, and the cultural dimension, an
emerging layer of the interaction between society and materiality—have been developed,
humanity witnesses a leap over complexity in which a series of new dimensions and domains
arise that have the layer of culture as an inter-structuring base and are inherent to the human
psychic individual (Simondon 2015), which in general can be classified as subgroups of these
first dimensions or as emerging successive layers of the same: this is the case of the economic,
communicational, political-institutional, spiritual-religious, and technological dimensions,
among others to come, identified as potential dimensions.
This is the paradigm we have used to think about the human problem of habitat from a
chronology based on Simondon’s analogic model referring to: a place in space and a moment in
time; to an interaction with matter, territory and crop; to the cultus (from the Latin) that settled
primates in agrarian societies and started civilization; to the interaction of the biological
dimension (the hominids) with the physical and environmental dimension, which caused the
emergence of the social and cultural dimensions; and with these two, to the series of dimensions
that constitute what we consider humanity and habitat today, a complex path of interdependent
layers whose dynamics cannot be said that stops evolving.
Returning to the theoretical framework of design, according to Parente (2010, 204) “the
faculty of design does not respond at all to instinctive parameters (as happens with the tools
used by other animals) but is made possible by coexistence in a particular cultural world.”
Design is not instinct; it is planning, ideal representation of a future project that is therefore
relative to the cultural context of a human community. Isolating design from the cultural context
in which it is going to be situated or used is to rob it of its essence.
Thinking what is possible is the basis of all design activity, and this always occurs in a
cultural configuration that gives meaning to what is thought (Parente 2010). Design does this
through symbolic language, with the use of representation, such as architectural plans, signs and
conventions, schematics, prototypes, and language in general; they are elements that enable the
planning of a system, its representation, and consequently, its construction or manufacture.
Hence, design is made possible by culture, since it is constituted by means of symbolisms that
allow for an indirect relationship with the matter. This is why the term design comes from the
Italian designio, which in turn comes from the Latin designare, and from this to the English
Accepted Manuscript
MARIN VANEGAS: THE HABITAT INTERVENTION DESIGN PROCESS, PART I
“de-sign,” that is, a designation, to designate something, to give a sign to something so that it
can represent, model it and allow changes to be made on it to think and project possible worlds.
Once the ecological and human notion of habitat is understood, and its relationship with the
notion of the built, artificial, designed environment, it can be seen how it makes a shift from the
natural sciences to the human sciences, from nature to culture, from the natural environment to the
artificial environment, and therefore, follows a path that begins with the discipline, passes through
the multidiscipline, to finally reach interdiscipline and transdiscipline, which seeks the unity of
knowledge beyond the disciplines (Bunders et al. 2010). Figure 4 shows this path of knowledge
that we have built from the transdisciplinary taxonomy made by Odum and Barrett (2005) based
on Jantsch (1972), but also implemented in the interdiscipline of the built environment and the
transdiscipline of the human habitat, to better integrate them into the model.
Figure 4: The Path of Human Habitat’s Transdiscipline for the Chronology of Knowledge Production
Source: Marín-Vanegas
To differentiate these levels of organization of knowledge, it is necessary to understand
that: 1) the disciplinary approach is that of the professional who specializes in isolation; 2) the
multidisciplinary approach is the existence of multiple disciplines without cooperation in a
project; 3) the interdisciplinary approach occurs in contexts where disciplines are transformed
in the process of interaction and cooperation; and 4) the transdisciplinary approach occurs when
the borders of the disciplines are transcended to solve real-world complex problems (Bunders et
al. 2010) involving social actors, thus creating communities of practice (Wenger 1998, 2010).
In this way, the concept of habitat has evolved from nature to humanity. This displacement
has caused that, in the field of urban-rural studies, territorial planning, and architectural or
constructive design, the conception of housing, based on the notion of habitat, emerges as a
more suitable approach for teaching the design of sustainable built environments (Opoku and
Guthrie 2017; Holdsworth and Sandri 2014). This teaching is done both in programs related to
construction, architecture, civil engineering, and even other fields of engineering, as well as in
programs in the humanities, social sciences, and their application in real-world problems along
with community organizations and institutions of human society
Accepted Manuscript
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL – ANNUAL REVIEW
Pragmatic Foundations: The Path of the Integrated Sustainability
So far, we have addressed all the questions for the understanding of the human habitat as a built
environment representing a second nature that is not separated from the first. Also considering
that, through its conceptual path, the human habitat is a transdisciplinary notion that transcends the
monodisciplinary notion of housing. After this, we can continue through the understanding of the
dimensions of the integrated sustainability with which the global agenda works nowadays (Wu et
al. 2017) and consequently its articulation with the dimensions presented in Figures 1 and 3.
At first, before the report The Limits to Growth published by the Circle of Rome in 1972
(Meadows et al. 1972), in general, only economic sustainability or the financial dimensions of
projects were discussed (Gómez, Sánchez, and Fajardo 2018), and in particular, the spatial-
material dimension of architectural projects (Neufert 1995). But the alarming news from the
Circle of Rome gave rise to the Brundtland Report (WCED 1987), where the problem of
environmental sustainability was introduced into the discussion of the global agenda through
the formation of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP 1987).
Many countries came together in 1987 to make the Brundtland Report, or Our Common
Future, in which the first appearance of the concept of sustainable development was observed
as a “development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (UNEP 1987, 59). Then, since the 1990s,
the social dimension of sustainability began to gain strength as a set that encompasses 4
dimensions itself: economic, ecological, political, and cultural (Magee et al. 2013). At the
beginning of twenty-first century, culture was officially included as the fourth pillar of
sustainability by the UN and the entire world agenda (CGLU 2010). Ultimately, current studies
have also incorporated institutional sustainability into housing projects (Wu et al. 2017).
In the first instance, the interpretations of sustainability referred mainly to economic
progress and the growth of the industry for financial optimization purposes. In the second
instance, they referred to environmental care and conservation as a fundamental axis of
development that changed from being traditional to be considered “sustainable.” Ultimately,
there are currently several types of sustainability, integrated into a single one that encompasses
all systems and dimensions.
The architect Saldarriaga Roa (in Valdés 2017, 95) has explained that sustainability at the
level of urban-rural development and cities “does not focus solely on environmental issues but,
in its broadest sense, also incorporates social, economic and cultural.” Thus, institutions and
interdisciplinary teams that work on territorial planning should define basic criteria of what is
considered sustainable development and what is not, including the vision of the existing
communities of practice in the territory. Roa proposes to talk of sustainability as a totality.
However, it will be necessary first to understand the particular approach of each type of
sustainability from its origin, to achieve a more complex and comprehensive synthesis of the
definition, formulating an interpretation that can be a reference for urban or rural intervention
projects aimed at the use and the practice of the term.
In the first place, traditional sustainability (environmental, economic, and social) is the
sustainability of the Brundtland Report, whose meaning is the most common use of the term
and the first to be used in the legal framework, both internationally with the United Nations, and
at the national level in Colombia with Law 2811 of 1974. In addition to this, this meaning of
sustainability is the one contemplated in Millennium Development Goal 7: Ensure
environmental sustainability—and which is strongly linked to the approach of availability of
natural resources from an ecological perspective.
Within this framework, Professor Allen Bartlett (2006) formulated twenty-one principles or
“laws of sustainability” in a section of his work on the reflection of the concept; these laws
comprise the basic guidelines for sustainable development in relation to the environment that
are summarized in three main rules independent to the problem of population growth: 1) no
Accepted Manuscript
MARIN VANEGAS: THE HABITAT INTERVENTION DESIGN PROCESS, PART I
renewable resource should be used at a rate higher than its generation; 2) no contaminant should
be produced at a higher rate than it can be recycled, neutralized or absorbed by the environment;
3) no non-renewable resource should be used faster than necessary for it to be replaced by a
renewable resource used in a sustainable manner. Secondly, the CGLU report (2010) recounts
how the concept of sustainable development and its articulation in three dimensions was
developed in the second half of the 1980s, adding the socio-ecological dimension to the
traditional economic conception.
Lastly, cultural sustainability manages to take the concept of development beyond the route
shown in its environmental, ecological, social and economic aspects, still strongly focused on
natural, material and financial resources. In the most current discussions of development,
culture was established as a new dimension of the so-called “pillars of sustainable
development” (Hawkes 2001). This dimension has been promoted since 1995, when the World
Commission on Culture and Development (WCCD 1995), defined it as “intragenerational and
intergenerational access to cultural services” (Axelsson et al. 2013, 217).
In addition, after the Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity of UNESCO, the WCCD
sanctioned the inclusion of culture as the fourth fundamental pillar for Sustainable Development in
the World Network of United Cities and Local Governments (CGLU for its Spanish acronym):
It is a general opinion that these dimensions are not enough to reflect the intrinsic
complexity of contemporary society. Researchers and institutions such as UNESCO
and the World Summit on Sustainable Development call for culture to be included in
this development model, asserting that culture ultimately shapes what we understand
as development and determines how people act in the world. (CGLU 2010)
Finally, the aforementioned discussions on the global agenda, propose addressing the
problem of sustainable development in relation to culture through two approaches: 1) the
development of the cultural sectors themselves, such as heritage, creativity, cultural industries,
art, cultural tourism, etc.; and 2) the advocacy for the inclusion of the cultural dimension and its
recognition in public policies related to: education, economy, science, communication,
environment, social cohesion and international cooperation; what we could classify in the
institutional dimension. This path of integrated sustainability is summarized in Figure 5.
Figure 5: The Path of Sustainable Development for the Chronology of Integrated Sustainability
Source: Marín-Vanegas
It can be seen how housing and urban-rural development studies have incorporated the
cultural dimension into their design practices (Memmot and Keys 2015). Thus, human settlements
(built environments), interpreted as one of the most common ways of transforming the natural
environment, reinforce the previously outlined relationship between nature and culture, instead of
Accepted Manuscript
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL – ANNUAL REVIEW
deepening their separation. As demonstrated with practical experiences of architectural design by
Memmot and Keys (2015), culture not only shapes what we understand as development but also
influences the design and conception of the architectural space that is transformed through the
cultural practices resulting from the habits, behaviors and values raised by the inhabitants.
These variables not only underlie the reasons why space is built and with which it is
burdened, but also indicate that the technology represented by technical objects such as
architecture also has a political dimension and an axiological weight (Winner 1977). A
statement that is explained as a result of the interpretation that understands the technology from
a symbolic perspective and that considers the culture contained in it.
Ultimately, having culture as the central axis in the construction of our proposal, it is also
necessary to clarify the role it has in the model, given the articulating role it plays on the other
dimensions. Benavides (2020) achieves a synthesis that clarifies it, based on an integration that
he makes of the authors who have worked on the subject of culture in housing and habitat
studies: 1) its role of promotion and support transmitted through architecture, language and
technology; 2) its articulating role exercised on the other three pillars of sustainability situating
a context; and 3) its role of integration of practices and actions as a generator of behaviors.
The inclusion of the fourth pillar of sustainable development has led us to rethink the
definition of sustainability (as shown in Part 2 of this article [forthcoming]), which, as mentioned
here, must be approached from a complex interpretation. It is pertinent to study its influence on the
ways of approaching territorial intervention aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals. In
this way, it can be taken to a definition that serves as a reference for any intervention project.
Partial Discussion and Conclusion
This article poses the model foundations to integrate the Intervention Design Process (IDP)
within a pedagogical model in following articles. These foundations consist of chronologies that
explain the transition suffered by the concept of habitat regarding linguistical, theoretical, and
pragmatical issues. After elaborating on the methodology, this article series starts with the use
of the term with its different meanings. Then, we develop the epistemological path of the notion
of human habitat with its inter- and trans-disciplinary transition. Ultimately, it closes with the
path of the integrated sustainability related to the multidimensional approach of the habitat that
constitutes the basis of our model. The discussion of partial results and the conclusion is
presented in three aspects and a closing statement as follows:
First, this research let us to state that the object of study of architecture and construction,
such as the projection and materialization of the human habitat, respectively, should not be
focused solely on the residential habitat, which is only a part of the human habitat. The human
does not only inhabit the house, the home, or the dwelling, which are only residential
subsystems of the human habitat, parts of a more complex whole. The human inhabits the
environments that he has built, be they residential, commercial, public, of services, of
infrastructure, among many other similar ones, as shown in Figure 6.
Second, among the criticisms that this research raises toward existing currents, we
understand that the design studios, in which their professionals work at desks rather than in the
field with the communities of practice, condemn design from its conception to imminent failure,
by ignoring the perspective of future users or inhabitants who will transform what is designed
with their socio-cultural practices.
Accepted Manuscript
MARIN VANEGAS: THE HABITAT INTERVENTION DESIGN PROCESS, PART I
Figure 6: Transition from the Notion of Housing and Residential Habitat to the Notion of Human Habitat in General
Source: Marín-Vanegas
Third, the results support that the operation of the outer world, human technique and the
artificially constructed environment have the same dynamics as mental processes (mental
isodynamism), rather than being isomorphic (Montoya 2015). Thus, the dimensions of human
habitat are the same as the humanity itself.
Finally, with this approach the unidimensional problem of social housing can thus be
addressed as a multidimensional habitat problem; a transition that has recently had an impact on
international regulations. We believe that this transition encourages a more complex view of
human intervention in the environment (natural/built), which goes beyond the simplistic view of
traditional housing projects.
Construction is the process and habitat is the result. Process and result are inseparable
because a result is never final; it is only valid in the time or space-time context in which it is
observed and evaluated. As construction is the activity that makes us human, habitat is what we
want to build, and thus, humans and habitat make up a dual that has become indivisible, since it
is the individual that constitutes what we know as humanity (see Figure 7). The final question is
What are the implications of separating an indivisible dual such as the human being from his
habitat? What implications would it have to take this complex, systemic, integrative, and non-
reductionist approach that stops separating it for its design? Fundamental questions for
designing a better world that we intent to answer in the following articles.
Figure 7: Humanity: A Dual That Became Indivisible; the Individual Constituted by Human Beings and Its Habitat
Source: Marín-Vanegas
Accepted Manuscript
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL – ANNUAL REVIEW
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to Universidad Nacional de Colombia (Colombian National University),
Medellín, Antioquia, for the financial support provided to the project “Modelo pedagógico para
la enseñanza del diseño de intervención del hábitat en programas de educación superior”
(HERMES 50253) by means of “Convocatoria para el Apoyo a Proyectos de Investigación y
Creación Artística en la Universidad Nacional de Colombia-Sede Medellín 2020.”
The author especially thanks Prof. Jorge Montoya, PhD, and Prof. John Muñoz, MsC, for
their intellectual support during this research as part of the bachelor thesis entitled
“Transdisciplinary Integration and Implementation Methodology: An Articulation of
Knowledge Systems On The Built Environment And Human Habitat Design With Its
Application in Education and Public Policies for Social Housing,” which was supervised by
John Muñoz and Johanna Vélez Rueda.
REFERENCES
Ardila-Suárez, Erwin, and Juan Felipe Rueda-Arenas. 2013. “La saturación teórica en la teoría
fundamentada: su delimitación en el análisis de trayectorias de vida de víctimas del
desplazamiento forzado en Colombia” [Theoretical Saturation in Grounded Theory: its
Delimitation in the Analysis of Life Trajectories of Victims of Forced Displacement in
Colombia]. Revista Colombiana de Sociología 36 (2): 96–104.
https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/recs/article/view/41641.
Arefi, Mahyar, and Firas Al-Douri. 2016. “Exploring Pedagogical Opportunities between
Architecture and Planning: The Case of University of Nevada, Las Vegas.” Planning
Theory & Practice 17 (1): 72–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1139741.
Axelsson, Robert, Per Angelstam, Erik Degerman, Sara Teitelbaum, Kjell Andersson, Marine
Elbakidze, Marcus K. Drotz. 2013. “Social and Cultural Sustainability: Criteria,
Indicators, Verifier Variables for Measurement and Maps for Visualization to Support
Planning.” AMBIO 42:215–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0376-0.
Bammer, Gabriele, Michael O’Rourke, Deborah O’Connell, Linda Neuhauser, Gerald Midgley,
Julie Thompson Klein, Nicola J. Grigg, et al. 2020. “Expertise in Research Integration
and Implementation for Tackling Complex Problems: When Is it Needed, Where Can
it Be Found and How Can it Be Strengthened?.” Palgrave Communications 6 (5): 1–
16. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0380-0.
Barberousse, Paulette. 2008. “Fundamentos teóricos del pensamiento complejo de Edgar
Morin” [Theoretical Foundations of Edgar Morin’s Complex Thought]. Revista
Electrónica Educare 12 (2): 95-113.
Barrett, Gary W. 2001. “Closing the Ecological Cycle: The Emergence of Integrative Science.”
Ecosystem Health 7:79–84.
Bartlett, A. A. 2006. “Reflections on Sustainability, Population Growth, and the Environment.”
Population & Environment 16:5–35.
Benavides Uribe, Ricardo José. 2016. “Epistemología de la construcción. Análisis
epistemológico del campo de conocimiento de la Construcción” [Construction
Epistemology. Epistemological Analysis of the Field of Knowledge of Construction].
Medellín: Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
Benavides Uribe, Ricardo José. 2020. Aproximación a indicadores de sostenibilidad cultural
en la construcción de vivienda de interés social en Medellín. Caso de estudio barrios
Doce de Octubre, Carlos E. Restrepo y Ciudadela Nuevo Occidente [Approach to
Indicators of Cultural Sustainability in the Construction of Low-Income Housing in
Accepted Manuscript
MARIN VANEGAS: THE HABITAT INTERVENTION DESIGN PROCESS, PART I
Medellín. Case Study of the Doce de Octubre, Carlos E. Restrepo and Ciudadela
Nuevo Occidente Neighborhoods]. Medellín: Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
Bettini, V. 1998. “Elementos de ecología urbana” [Elements of Urban Ecology]. Edited by
Manuel Peinado Lorca andTrotta. Madrid: Serie Medio Ambiente.
Bertalanffy, L. 1989. “Teoría General de los Sistemas: Fundamentos, desarrollo, aplicaciones”
[General Systems Theory: Fundamentals, Development, Applications]. México: Fondo
de Cultura Económica.
Bunders J. F., J. E. Broerse, F. Keil, C. Pohl, R. W. Scholz, and M. B. Zweekhorst. 2010. “How
Can Transdisciplinary Research Contribute to Knowledge Democracy?” In Knowledge
Democracy, edited by R. Veld. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11381-9_11.
Buchli, V. 2004. Material Culture: Critical Concepts in the Social Sciences. London:
Routledge.
Bunge, M. 2004. “Emergencia y convergencia. Novedad cualitativa y unidad del conocimiento”
[Emergence and Convergence. Qualitative Novelty and Unity of Knowledge].
Barcelona: Editorial Gedisa S.A.
Carvajal, Henry. 2013. El diseño de ejecución. Un planteamiento metodológico para la
enseñanza de la planeación de obras a constructores, arquitectos e ingenieros civiles
[The Execution Design. A Methodological Approach for Teaching Construction
Planning to Builders, Architects and Civil Engineers]. Medellín: Facultad de
Arquitectura, Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
Ceballos-Guerra, J. C. 2016. “¿Los Macroproyectos de Vivienda Masiva solucionan los
problemas de habitabilidad? Un acercamiento a la experiencia de Medellín con
Ciudadela Nuevo Occidente” [Do Massive Housing Macroprojects Solve Habitability
Problems? An Approach to the Experience of Medellín with Ciudadela Nuevo
Occidente]. Technical report, Universidad Nacional de Colombia Sede Medellín.
CEPAL. 2017. “Panorama multidimensional del desarrollo urbano en América Latina y el
Caribe” [Multidimensional Panorama of Urban Development in Latin America and the
Caribbean]. Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
Editores: Laetitia Montero; Johann García. Publicación de Naciones Unidas ONU,
Santiago, Chile, Junio de 2017. LC/TS.2017/67.
CGLU (Ciudades y Gobiernos Locales Unidos). 2010. “La Cultura es el cuarto pilar del
desarrollo sostenible” [Culture is the Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development].
Documento de Orientación Política, 15. https://www.agenda21culture.net/sites
/default/files/files/documents/es/zz_cultura4pilards_esp.pdf.
Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative
Analysis. London: SAGE.
Charmaz, K. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative
Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Cho, C., Candace E. Mazze, Sandra L. Dika and G. Bruce Gehrig. 2015. “Enhancing
Construction Education: Implementing Habitat for Humanity Projects as Service-
Learning for Construction Materials.” International Journal of Construction Education
and Research, 11 (1): 4-20, DOI: 10.1080/15578771.2014.915274.
Chynoweth, Paul. 2009. “The Built Environment Interdiscipline: A Theoretical Model for
Decision Makers in Research and Teaching.” Structural Survey 27 (4).
https://doi.org/10.1108/02630800910985090.
Correal Pachón, G. D., and H. Verdugo Reyes. 2011. “Sobre modelos pedagógicos y el
aprendizaje del proyecto arquitectónico” [On Pedagogical Models and the Learning of
the Architectural Project]. Revista de Arquitectura. Universidad Católica de Colombia
13:80–91. https://doi.org/10.41718/RevArq.
Accepted Manuscript
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL – ANNUAL REVIEW
DANE. 2018. “Censo Nacional de Población y Vivienda 2018” [National Population and
Housing Census 2018]. Boletín Técnico en Déficit Habitacional. Departamento
Administrativo Nacional de Estadística (DANE). Bogotá, Colombia.
Darke, J. 1978. “The Primary Generator and the Design Process.” New Directions in
Environmental Design Research: Proceedings of EDRA 9. Washington, EDRA. 325–
337.
Daubenmire, R. 1968. Plant Communities: A Textbook of Plant Synecology. New York: Harper
and Row.
De Zubiría, Julián. 1994. Los modelos pedagógicos [Pedagogical Models]. Bogotá: Fundación
Alberto Merani.
De Zubiría, Julián. 2011. Los modelos pedagógicos. Hacia una pedagogía dialogante
[Pedagogical Models: Towards a Dialogue Pedagogy]. Bogotá: Magisterio.
Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari. 1980. Capitalisme et Schizophrénie 2. Paris: Les Editions
de Minuit.
Doolitle, W .F. 2000. “Uprooting the Tree of Life.” Scientific American 282 (2):90–95.
Eagleton, Terry. 2000. La idea de cultura: una mirada política sobre los conflictos culturales
[The Idea of Culture: a Political Look at Cultural Conflicts]. Barcelona: Paidós.
Echeverría-Ramírez, M. et al. 2009. “¿Qué es el hábitat?: las preguntas por el hábitat” [What Is
the Habitat?: the Questions About the Habitat]. Escuela del Hábitat CEHAP, Facultad
de Arquitectura, Universidad Nacional de Colombia sede Medellín, Colombia.
Embley, T. and Martin, W. 2006. “Eukaryotic Evolution, Changes and Challenges.” Nature
440: 623–630. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04546.
Espinal Pérez, Cruz Elena. 2011. “Construcción de la naturaleza en los discursos de la biología
y la antropología.” [Construction of Nature in the Discourses of Biology and
Anthropology]. Boletín de Antropología 24 (41): 306–337.
Fernández Wagner, R. 2001. “Las ciencias del ambiente construido y los estudios del hábitat y
vivienda. Un nuevo marco para fortalecer la construcción transdisciplinar” [The Sciences
of the Built Environment and the Studies of Habitat and Housing. A New Framework to
Strengthen Transdisciplinary Construction]. Boletin INVI 43 (16): 37–47.
Freeman, Melissa. 2017. Modes of Thinking for Qualitative Data Analysis. New York:
Routledge.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture.” In The
Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, 3–30. New York: Basic Books.
GIFT. 2001. “Técnica y tecnología. Selección crítica de textos” [Technique and Technology.
Critical Selection of Texts]. Grupos de investigación Filosofía y Etología y Filosofía de
la técnica, GIFT. Cali: Facultad de Humanidades, Universidad del Valle.
Gille, Bertrand. 1999. “Introducción a la historia de las técnicas” [Introduction to the History of
Techniques]. Barcelona: Editorial Crítica / Marcombo.
Ginevicius, R. and V. Podvezko. 2007. “Complex Assessment of Sustainable Development of
State Regions with Emphasis on Ecological and Dwelling Conditions.” EKOLOGIJA
53:41–48.
Gómez, C.A., V. Sánchez, and M. Y. Fajardo. 2018. “Los proyectos y sus dimensiones: una
aproximación conceptual” [Projects and their Dimensions: a Conceptual Approach].
Contexto 7: 57–64.
Grinnell, J. 1917. “The Niche-Relationships of the California Thrasher.” Auk 34: 427–433.
Hall, L., P. Krausman, and M. Morrison. 1997. “The Habitat Concept and a Plea for Standard
Terminology.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 25 (1): 173–182.
Harper, Douglas. 2022. “Etymology of Dwelling,” Online Etymology Dictionary. Accessed
January 13, 2022.
Hawkes, Jon. 2001. The Fourth Pillar of Sustainability: Culture’s Essential Role in Public
Planning” Melbourne: Cultural Development Network.
Accepted Manuscript
MARIN VANEGAS: THE HABITAT INTERVENTION DESIGN PROCESS, PART I
Heidegger, Martin. 1951. “Construir, habitar, pensar” [Building Dwelling Thinking].
Traducción al español del original alemán presentado en Darmstadt, Alemania.
https://www.fadu.edu.uy/estetica-diseno-ii/files/2013/05/Heidegger-Construir-Habitar-
Pensar1.pdf.
Hirsch Hadorn G, H. Hoffmann-Riem, S. Biber-Klemm, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, D. Joye,
C. Pohl, U. Wiesmann, and E. Zemp, eds. 2008. Handbook of Transdisciplinary
Research. New York: Springer.
Hitziger, M., M. Aragrande, J. A. Berezowski, M. Canali, V. Del Rio Vilas, S. Hoffmann, G.
Igrejas, H. Keune, A. Lux, M. Bruce, M.A. Palenberg, C. Pohl, M. Radesk, I. Richter,
C.R. Abad, R.H. Salerno, S. Savic, J. Schirmer, B.R. Vogler, and S,R, Rüegg. 2019.
“EVOlvINC: Evaluating Knowledge Integration Capacity in Multistakeholder
Governance.” Ecology and Society 24(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10935-240236
Hoffmann, S., C. Pohl, and J.G. Hering. 2017. “Methods and Procedures of Transdisciplinary
Knowledge Integration: Empirical Insights from Four Thematic Synthesis Processes.”
Ecology and Society 22 (1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08955-220127.
Holdsworth, S., and Orana Sandri. 2014. “Sustainability Education and the Built Environment:
Experiences from the Classroom.” Journal for Education in the Built Environment 9
(1): 48–68. https://doi.org/10.11120/jebe.2014.00011.
Hutchinson, G. E. 1957. “Concluding Remarks.” Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative
Biology 22:415-427. https://doi.org/10.1101/SQB.1957.022.01.039.
Jantsch, E. 1972. “Towards Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity in Education and
Innovation.” In Apostel, L., G. Berger, A. Briggs and G. Michaud. (Eds.)
Interdisciplinarity: Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities, edited by L.
Apostel, G. Berger, A. Briggs, and G. Michaud, 97–121. University of Nice. Centre for
Research and Innovation. Paris: OECD.
Jiménez, O. 2018. “Política Habitacional Economía informal: Déficit habitacional en Bogotá y
Programa de cien mil viviendas gratis en Colombia” [Housing Policy Informal
Economy: Housing Deficit in Bogotá and Program of One Hundred Thousand Free
Homes in Colombia]. (August), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13322.72646.
Kates, R. W., W. C. Clark, R. Corell, J. M. Hall, C. C. Jaeger, I. Lowe et al. 2001.
“Sustainability Science.” Science 292: 641–642. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3083523.
Khakzand, M., and A. Koorosh. 2021. “Developing a Creative Landscape Design Process
Based on the Interaction of Architecture and Landscape.” International Journal of
Design Education 15 (2): 133-151. doi:10.18848/2325-128X/CGP/v15i02/133-151
Klein, A. 1980. La vivienda mínima: 1906 – 1957 [The Minimum Dwelling: 1906 – 1957].
Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gilli.
Klein, J. T. 1990. Interdisciplinarity. History, Theory and Practice. Detroit: Wayne State
University Press.
Lapadula and Quiroga. 2012. “Heritage as a Pedagogical Resource and Platform for Exploration
in Architectural Design Education” The Journal of Architecture 17 (4): 591-607. DOI:
10.1080/13602365.2012.709028.
Larsson, N. 2002. The Integrated Design Process: Report on a National Workshop. Ottawa:
Natural Resources Canada.
Leroi-Gourhan, André. 1943. Évolución et techniques. L´homme et la matière [Evolution and
Techniques. Man and Matter]. Paris: Michel.
Leroi-Gourhan, André. 1971. “El gesto y la palabra” [The Gesture and the Word]. Universidad
Central de Venezuela.
Lima, L., E. Trindade, L. Alencar, M. Alencar, and L. Silva. 2021. “Sustainability in the
Construction Industry: A Systematic Review of the Literature.” Journal of Cleaner
Production 289:125730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125730.
Accepted Manuscript
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL – ANNUAL REVIEW
Magee, L., A. Scerri, P. James, J. A. Thom, L. Padgham, S. Hickmott, H. Deng, and F. Cahill.
2013. “Reframing Social Sustainability Reporting: Towards an Engaged Approach.”
Environ Dev Sustain 15: 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-012-9384-2
Maiello, A., M. Battaglia, T. Daddi, and M. Frey. 2011. “Urban Sustainability and Knowledge:
Theoretical Heterogeneity and the Need of a Transdisciplinary Framework. A Tale of Four
Towns.” Futures 43 (10): 1164–1174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2011.08.011.
Manzini, E. 1996. Artefactos. Hacia una nueva ecología del ambiente artificial [Artifacts.
Towards a New Ecology of the Artificial Environment]. Madrid: Celeste Ediciones.
Marín-Vanegas, Daniel Felipe. 2022. “Desde el diseño técnico hacia el diseño tecnológico: el
concepto de sistema constructivo en las ciencias del ambiente construido y el programa
de Construcción” [From Technical Design to Technological Design: the Concept of
Construction System in the Sciences of the Built Environment and in the Construction
Curricular Program]. In: Visiones de futuro. Arquitectura, Artes y Construcción.
Medellín: Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
Maturana, H. 1999. “Transformación en la convivencia” [Transformation in Coexistence]. (2da
ed.). Santiago de Chile: Dolmen Ediciones S.A.
Meadows, D. H., D. L Meadows, J. Randers, W. Behrens, and Club of Rome. 1972. The Limits
to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind.
New York: Universe Books.
Mejía-Escalante, M. E. 2012. “Habitabilidad en la vivienda social en edificios para población
reasentada. El caso de Medellín, Colombia” [Habitability in Social Housing in
Buildings for Resettled Population. The Case of Medellin, Colombia]. Revista EURE.
38 (114): 203–227.
Memmott, P., and C. Keys. 2015. “Redefining Architecture to Accommodate Cultural
Difference: Designing for Cultural Sustainability” Architectural Science Review, DOI:
10.1080/00038628.2015.1032210.
Merriam-Webster. 2022. “Habitat.” Accessed April 13, 2022. https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/habitat
Midgley, Gerald. 2000. Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, Methodology, and Practice. Kluwer
New York: Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Midgley, Gerald. 2003. “Systems Thinking” (Volumes I–IV). London: Sage.
Montoya, Jorge William. 1996. “La ecosofía y los paradigmas de división” [Ecosophy and the
Paradigms of Division]. UNAULA 16. Revista de la Universidad Autónoma
Latinoamericana 16 (1): 181-186.
Montoya, Jorge William. 2004. “Aproximación al concepto analogía en la obra de Gilbert
Simondon” [Approach to the Concept of Analogy in the Work of Gilbert Simondon].
Co-Herencia 1 (1): 31–50.
Montoya, Jorge William. 2015. “El individuo técnico: un objeto inevitable” [The Technical
Individual: an Inevitable Object]. Amar a las máquinas. Cultura y técnica en Gilbert
Simondon. Buenos Aires: Cactus.
Montoya, Jorge William. 2019. La individuación y la técnica en la obra de Simondon
[Individuation and Technique in Simondon’s Work]. Bogotá, Aula de Humanidades.
Morin, E. 1994. Introducción al pensamiento complejo [Introduction to Complex Thinking].
Translated by Marcelo Pakman. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Muñoz Echavarría, John de Jesús. 2004. “La formación integral: Desarrollo pedagógico desde
una línea de profundización en la Universidad Nacional de Colombia Facultad de
Arquitectura - Escuela de Construcción” [Comprehensive Training: Pedagogical
Development from a Line of Deepening at the National University of Colombia
Faculty of Architecture - School of Construction]. Retrieved from: Repositorio
Institucional UN. EBSCO HOST. /Biblioteca Efe Gómez.
Accepted Manuscript
MARIN VANEGAS: THE HABITAT INTERVENTION DESIGN PROCESS, PART I
Neufert, Ernst. 1995. Arte de Proyectar en Arquitectura [Art of Projecting in Architecture].
México: Editorial Gustavo Gili.
Odum, Eugene. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology, 3rd ed. Philadeplhia, PA: W. B. Saunders Co.
Odum, Eugene P. and Gary W. Barrett. 2005. Fundamentals of Ecology, 5th ed. Belmont, CA:
Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning.
O’Malley, M.A., M.M. Leger, J.G. Wideman, I. Ruiz-Trillo. 2019. “Concepts of the Last
Eukaryotic Common Ancestor.” Nature Ecology & Evolution 3: 338–344
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0796-3.
Opoku, A., and P. Guthrie. 2017. “Education for Sustainable Development in the Built
Environment.” International Journal of Construction Education and Research 14 (1):
1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/15578771.2018.1418614.
Peña, W. 2008. “Dinámicas emergentes de la realidad: del Pensamiento Complejo al
Pensamiento Sistémico Autopoiético” [Emerging Dynamics of Reality: from Complex
Thinking to Autopoietic Systemic Thinking]. Revista Latinoamericana de Bioética 8
(2): 72–87.
Pino-James, N. 2018. “Evaluation of a Pedagogical Model for Student Engagement in Learning
Activities.” Educational Action Research, 26 (3): 456–479.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2017.1354771.
Pohl, C., Julie Thompson Klein, Sabine Hoffmann, C. Mitchell, and D. Fam. 2021. “Conceptualising
Transdisciplinary Integration as a Multidimensional Interactive Process.” Environmental
Science and Policy 118: 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.12.005.
RAE (Real Academia Española). 2022. “Diccionario de la lengua española” [Spanish
Dictionary]. 23.ª ed., [versión 23.5 en línea]. https://dle.rae.es [11/04/2022].
Ridgway. 2000. “BUILDING A SITE FOR THINKING: Teaching First Year Building
Construction.” Architectural Theory Review 5 (2): 14-26.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13264820009478397.
Ron, J. 1977. Sobre el concepto de cultura [On the Concept of Culture]. Cuadernos populares.
Quito: Instituto Andino de Artes Populares.
Rowe, P. G. 1987. Design Thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. 2018. The End of the Cognitive Empire: the Coming of Age of
Epistemologies of the South. Durham: Duke University Press.
Sheumaker, H., and S.T. Wajda. 2008. Material Culture in America: Understanding Everyday
Life. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Simon, H. 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd ed. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Simondon, G. 2007. El modo de existencia de los objetos técnicos [The Mode of Existence of
Technical Objects]. Buenos Aires: Prometeo.
Simondon, G. 2013. Imaginación e invención [Imagination and Invention], 1st ed. Serie Clases.
Buenos Aires: Cactus.
Simondon, G. 2015. La Individuación a la luz de las nociones de forma y de información
[Individuation in the Light of the Notions of Form and Information]. Buenos Aires: Cactus.
Sinakou, E., J. Boeve-De Pauw, and Peter Van Petegem. 2019. “Exploring the Concept of
Sustainable Development within Education for Sustainable Development: Implications
for ESD Research and Practice.” Environment, Development and Sustainability 21:1–
10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-0032-8.
Smith, T. M., and R. L. Smith. 2007. Ecología [Ecology], 6th ed. Madrid: Pearson Education.
Stanley, S. 1999. Earth System History. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Stein, Gil J. 1998. “Heterogeneity, Power, and Political Economy: Some Current Research
Issues in The Archaeology of Old World Complex Societies.” Journal of
Archaeological Research 6 (1): 1–44.
Stiegler, B. 2001. “Leroi-Gourhan. Lo inorgánico organizado” [Leroi-Gourhan. The Organized
Inorganic]. Les cahiers de mediologie. N°6. Pourquoi les médiologues? In:
Accepted Manuscript
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL – ANNUAL REVIEW
Traducciones historia de la biología N°17. Facultad de Ciencias Humanas y
Económicas. Traducción: Jairo Montoya Gómez.
Stiegler, B. 2012. “Tiempo e individuaciones técnica, psíquica y colectiva en la obra de
Simondon” [Time and Technical, Psychic and Collective Individuations in Simondon’s
work]. Trilogía Ciencia Tecnología Sociedad 4 (6): 133–146.
Tatar, Elif and Y. Ruşen. 2021. “A Sustainable Model Proposal for Architectural Education.”
The International Journal of Design Education 15 (2): 167–186.
https://doi.org/10.18848/2325-128X/CGP/v15i02/167-186.
United Nations. 1948. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2014.64.
UNEP. 1987. Brundtland Report “Our Common Future”. Geneva: United Nations Environment
Program. .
Valdés, M. F., ed. 2017. Ciudades sostenibles en el Posconflicto en Colombia: Cartagena,
Bogotá, Medellín, Bucaramanga [Sustainable Cities in the post-conflict in Colombia:
Cartagena, Bogotá, Medellín, Bucaramanga]. http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros
/kolumbien/13432.pdf
Varela, F., and Humberto Maturana. 1973. “De Máquinas y Seres Vivos: Una teoría sobre la
organización biológica” [Of Machines and Living Beings: A Theory of Biological
Organization]. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Universitaria.
Vélez-Rueda, J. 2014. “La ciudad latinoamericana: ¿forma o habitáculo?” [The Latin American
City: Form, or Habitat?]. In Casas de infinitas privaciones ¿Germen de ciudades para
todos?, edited by Boliva-Barreto et al. 611–631. Ecuador: CLACSO.
Venn, J. 1880. “On the Diagrammatic and Mechanical Representation of Propositions and
Reasonings.” London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of
Science 10 (59): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786448008626877.
Vienni Baptista, Bianca and S. Rojas-Castro. 2019. “Transdisciplinary Institutionalization in
Higher Education: a Two-Level Analysis.” Studies in Higher Education 45(6): 1075–
1092. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1593347.
Vienni Baptista, Bianca, F. Vasen, and J.C. Villa Soto. 2019. “Interdisciplinary Centers in Latin
American Universities: The Challenges of Institutionalization.” Higher Education
Policy 32 (3): 461–483. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-018-0092-x.
Vienni Baptista, María Goñi, Haydeé García, Inta Rivas Fauré, Daniel Felipe Marín-Vanegas,
and Cecilia Hidalgo. 2022. “Situated Expertise in Integration and Implementation
Processes in Latin America.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 9
(184). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01203-7.
Wainer, L. S., and L.J. Vale. 2021. “Wealthier-But-Poorer: The Complex Sociology of
Homeownership at Peripheral Housing in Cartagena, Colombia.” Habitat International
114: 102388. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HABITATINT.2021.102388.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: The
Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Wenger, E. 2010. “Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems: the Career of a Concept.”
In Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice, edited by C. Blackmore.
London: Springer.https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-133-2_11.
Williams, Raymond. 2003. Palabras Clave. Un vocabulario de la Cultura y la Sociedad
[Keywords. A Vocabulary of Culture and Society], 1st ed. Buenos Aires: Nueva Visión.
Wilson and Cotgrave. 2020. “Learning Space Design: The Presentation of a Framework for the
Built Environment Discipline.” International Journal of Construction Education and
Research, 16 (2): 132-148. https://doi.org/10.1080/15578771.2020.1727067.
Wilson, Edward O. 1999. Consilience: la unidad del conocimiento [Consilience: Unity of
Knowledge]. Círculo de Lectores, Galaxia Gutenberg.
Accepted Manuscript
MARIN VANEGAS: THE HABITAT INTERVENTION DESIGN PROCESS, PART I
Winner, L. 1977. “Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-Control as a Theme in Political
Thought.” Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
WCCD (World Commission on Culture and Development). 1995. Our Creative Diversity.
Paris: WCCD.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Our Common Future.
Oxford, UK.
Wu, G., K. Duan, J. Zuo, X. Zhao, and D. Tang. 2017. “Integrated Sustainability Assessment of
Public Rental Housing Community Based on a Hybrid Method of AHP-Entropy
Weight and Cloud Model.” Sustainability 9 (4): 603.
https://doi/org/10.3390/su9040603.
Zhao, Andrew, P. McCoy, T. Bulbul, C. Fiori, and P. Nikkhoo. 2015. “Building Collaborative
Construction Skills through BIM-integrated Learning Environment.” International
Journal of Construction Education and Research 11 (2): 97-120.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15578771.2014.986251.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Daniel Felipe Marín Vanegas: Builder Architect, Construction Bachelor Program Students
Representative, Construction and Habitat Curricular Area, Medellín, Antioquia, Colombia;
Research Group on Contemporary Thought of the Department of Philosophical and Cultural
Studies, Faculty of Humanities and Economics (FCHE); Construction Research Group of the
School of Construction, Faculty of Architecture, Medellin, Antioquia, Colombia
Accepted Manuscript
ISSN 1833-1874
Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal—Annual Review
explores the meaning and purpose of "design," as well as speaking in grounded
ways about the task of design and the use of designed artifacts. The resulting
conversations weave between the theoretical and the empirical, research and
application, market pragmatics and social idealism.
In professional and disciplinary terms, the journal traverses a broad sweep to
construct a transdisciplinary dialogue which encompasses the perspectives and
practices of: anthropology, architecture, art, artificial intelligence, business,
cognitive science, communication studies, computer science, cultural studies,
design studies, education, e-learning, engineering, ergonomics, fashion, graphic
design, history, information systems, industrial design, industrial engineering,
instructional design, interior design, interaction design, interface design,
journalism, landscape architecture, law, linguistics and semiotics, management,
media and entertainment, psychology, sociology, software engineering, technical
communication, telecommunications, urban planning, and visual design.
Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal—Annual Review
,
consists of articles considered to be of wide interest across the field.
Five thematically focused journals also serve this Research Network:
•
The International Journal of Design Education
• The International Journal of Design in Society
• The International Journal of Design Management and Professional Practice
• The International Journal of Designed Objects
• The International Journal of Visual Design
Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal—Annual Review
, is a
peer-reviewed, scholarly journal.
Accepted Manuscript
