mang s de jieshu

c. Culturally Responsive to Whom? This issue has already been raised. From the previous discussion it follows that when one speaks of “culturally responsive architecture” two interpretations of the underlying problem suggest themselves:
1. The fact that designers, clients and users effectively constitute different cultures.
2. That users themselves are variable in most present day situations, i.e. there are present numerous groups of users with different cultures.

Both, of course, are aspects of a single question which some of my work has addressed, on and off, for other decade: whose culture? In order to answer it one needs to define those groups which are relevant for design. The definition and identification of relevant groups and those of their characteristics which are significant regarding the environment is a major challenge and an under researched question. The “groups” whose “culture” is relevant and to whom the environment is supposed to be responsive need to be discovered. Clearly this means designing for specific users rather than for oneself or one’s peers.
d. How Are Environments Responsive? Using the idea of a supportive environment one can rephrase this in terms of how particular environmental elements support certain cultural mechanisms which link people and environments (part of the third of the three basic questions of environment-behavior studied). For example, instrumental aspects of activities, meaning, status and identity; institutions (family, social units, religion, etc.), tradition and continuity, temporal orientations, etc. By identifying which of these form part of the culture core, and what specific form they take, and which elements of the physical environment support them, and how, one can begin to achieve such goals, and to suggest the consequences of failing to do so.
Also, maximizing choice is critical. The major effect of environment on behavior is through habitat selection: people leave unsatisfactory environments for those they regard as better. Blocked habitat selection is a major factor in unresponsiveness. There is strong evidence that environments which are chosen are inherently supportive, and hence responsive, as opposed to identical environments which are imposed. The fact of having been chosen may be as important as what is chosen. But if one studied choice itself, one fins it also to be highly variable: cultural specificity continues to operate. One chooses particular profiles of environmental quality---but environmental quality is culturally defined.