Vol. 17 No. 1 (2026): Regular Issue (In Progress)
Research Article

Integrating Neuroscience into Age-Friendly Urban Governance

PDF
Rengin Aslanoğlu
Department of Systems Research, Faculty of Spatial Management and Landscape Architecture, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences
Conceptual flow of neuro-responsive age-friendly urban governance
DOI: https://doi.org/10.48088/ejg.r.asl.17.1.160.175
Categories

Published 2026-05-02

Keywords

  • neuroarchitecture,
  • age-friendly,
  • urban governance

How to Cite

Aslanoğlu, Rengin. 2026. “Integrating Neuroscience into Age-Friendly Urban Governance”. European Journal of Geography 17 (1):160-75. https://doi.org/10.48088/ejg.r.asl.17.1.160.175.

Copyright (c) 2026 Rengin Aslanoğlu

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Received 2026-01-17
Accepted 2026-05-01
Published 2026-05-02

Abstract

Global policy frameworks such as the WHO Age-Friendly Cities initiative and the Sustainable Development Goals have played a significant role in shaping contemporary urban responses to population aging. These frameworks promote inclusive, healthy, and accessible cities, yet they are often translated into practice through standardized design checklists and physical accessibility measures. This study argues that such approaches are insufficient to address the cognitive and neuro-sensory dimensions of aging, resulting in a governance gap between global standards and local lived experience. It examines how age-friendly policies are mediated by urban environments based on concepts from neuroarchitecture, an interdisciplinary approach that focuses on psychological and physiological dimensions of human experience in the built environment, health geography, and urban governance. It introduces the notion of neuro-responsiveness as an evaluative lens for assessing whether urban governance structures meaningfully engage with aging-related cognitive diversity. As a result, neuroarchitectural considerations are frequently marginalized, despite their relevance to well-being, and everyday mobility for older adults. In the context of a shifting world order, marked by demographic aging, decentralization, and increasing demands on local governments, the study calls for a reorientation of age-friendly governance toward neuro-informed planning methods. This involves integrating cognitive criteria into urban policy, fostering cross-sector collaboration, and recognizing neuroarchitecture as a form of necessity embedded in local decision-making. The study concludes by identifying pathways to more cognitively equitable and contextually sensitive urban governance, to empower the next generation of designers, planners, and future decision-makers, to navigate complex social change.

Highlights:

  • Standardized age-friendly frameworks overlook cognitive and neuro-sensory dimensions.
  • Neuro-responsiveness of governance bridges global policy and lived urban experience of aging.
  • Neuro-informed architecture can empower inclusivity in urban environments.
PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Alzheimer’s Disease International. (2019). World Alzheimer Report 2019: Attitudes to dementia. London: Alzheimer’s Disease International. https://www.alzint.org/resource/world-alzheimer-report-2019/
  2. Andrews, G. J., & Phillips, D. R. (2005). Ageing and place: Perspectives, policy, practice. Routledge. ISBN 9780415481656
  3. Andrews, G. J., Cutchin, M., McCracken, K., Phillips, D. R., & Wiles, J. (2007). Geographical gerontology: The constitution of a discipline. Social Science & Medicine, 65(1), 151-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.02.047
  4. Annear, M., Fristedt, S., & Laddawong, T. (2024). Walkability in Japan’s aging neighborhoods: A comparative audit anal-ysis of pedestrian journeys in urban Tokyo. Journal of Transport & Health, 35, 101755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2024.101755
  5. Aslanoğlu, R. (2025). Principles of neuroarchitecture in the city: Insights into urban ageing through photoproduction. Urban Studies, 00420980251379204. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980251379204
  6. Aslanoğlu R., Kazak J.K., van Hoof J. (2025). Mindful design for well-being: Exploring neuroarchitecture in the built envi-ronment. Indoor and Built Environment, 34(8), 1447-1452. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X251313892
  7. Bendl, T., Krajňáková, L., Marada, M., & Řezníčková, D. (2025). Geographical thinking in geography education: A sys-tematic review. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 34(4), 326-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2024.2354097
  8. Bloom, D. E., Canning, D., & Fink, G. (2010). Implications of population ageing for economic growth. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 26(4), 583–612. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grq038
  9. Biesta, G. (2013). The beautiful risk of education. Paradigm Publishers. ISBN 9781315635866
  10. Boubekri, M., Cheung, I. N., Reid, K. J., Wang, C. H., & Zee, P. C. (2014). Impact of windows and daylight exposure on overall health and sleep quality of office workers: A case-control pilot study. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, 10(6), 603–611. https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.3780
  11. Buffel, T., Phillipson, C., & Scharf, T. (2012). Ageing in urban environments: Developing “age-friendly” cities. Critical Social Policy, 32(4), 597–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018311430457
  12. Buffel, T., & Phillipson, C. (2024). Ageing in place in urban environments: Critical perspectives. Routledge. ISBN 9781032134666
  13. Brenner, N. (2004). New state spaces: Urban governance and the rescaling of statehood. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199270057.001.0001
  14. Choudhury, S. (2024). From traffic to community: The science of superblocks. JPI Urban Europe. Retrieved from https://jpi-urbaneurope.eu/from-traffic-to-community-the-science-of-superblocks/
  15. City of Vancouver. (2013). Age-friendly action plan. City of Vancouver. https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/age-friendly-action-plan.aspx Last accessed: 17.01.2026.
  16. Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300209570
  17. Cugurullo, F., Acheampong, R. A., Dusparic, I., & Gueriau, M. (2020). The transition to autonomous cars, the redesign of cities and the future of urban sustainability. Urban Geography, 42(6), 833-859. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2020.1746096
  18. Cugurullo, F., Caprotti, F., Cook, M., Karvonen, A., MᶜGuirk, P., & Marvin, S. (2024). The rise of AI urbanism in post-smart cities: A critical commentary on urban artificial intelligence. Urban studies, 61(6), 1168-1182. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231203386
  19. Cutchin, M. P. (2003). The process of mediated aging-in-place: A theoretically and empirically grounded model. Social Science & Medicine, 57(6), 1077–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00486-0
  20. Davis, R., & Weisbeck, C. (2016). Creating a supportive environment using cues for wayfinding in dementia. Journal of gerontological nursing, 42(3), 36-44. https://doi.org/10.3928/00989134-20160212-07
  21. de Paiva, A. (2025). Methodological challenges in neuroarchitecture: towards a better understanding on how architec-ture affects cognitive reserve. Intelligent Buildings International, 17(1), 4-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2025.2493696
  22. Djebbara, Z., Fich, L. B., Petrini, L., & Gramann, K. (2019). Sensorimotor brain dynamics reflect architectural affordanc-es. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(29), 14769-14778. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1900648116
  23. Eberhard, J. P. (2009). Brain landscape: The coexistence of neuroscience and architecture. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331721.001.0001
  24. Engin, Z., Crowcroft, J., Hand, D., & Treleaven, P. (2025). The Algorithmic State Architecture (ASA): an integrated framework for AI-enabled government. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08725. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.08725
  25. Evans, G. W. (2003). The built environment and mental health. Journal of Urban Health, 80(4), 536–555. https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/jtg063
  26. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum. New York, USA.
  27. Finlay, J. M., & Kobayashi, L. C. (2018). Social isolation and loneliness in later life: A parallel convergent mixed-methods case study of older adults and their residential contexts in the Minneapolis metropolitan area, USA. Social science & medicine, 208, 25-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.05.010
  28. Flores, R., Caballer, A., & Alarcón, A. (2019). Evaluation of an age-friendly city and its effect on life satisfaction: A two-stage study. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(24), 5073. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245073
  29. Florida, R., Adler, P., & Mellander, C. (2021). The city as innovation machine. In Transitions in Regional Economic Devel-opment (1st ed., pp. 20–39). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315143736
  30. Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/3005579
  31. Healey, P. (2007). Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. Routledge. ISBN 9780415380355
  32. Hill, P. F. (2023). When landmarks are not enough. ELife, 12, e87771. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.87771
  33. Holmes, K. (2018). Mismatch: How inclusion shapes design. Mit Press. ISBN 9780262038881
  34. Huovila, A., Bosch, P., & Airaksinen, M. (2019). Comparative analysis of standardized indicators for Smart sustainable cities: What indicators and standards to use and when?. Cities, 89, 141-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.01.02
  35. Imrie, R., & Hall, P. (2001). Inclusive design: Designing and developing accessible environments. Spon Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203362501
  36. IPCC. (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844
  37. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press.
  38. Kitchin, R. (2014). The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal, 79(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-013-9516-8
  39. Kitchin, R. (2023). Urban data power: Capitalism, governance, ethics, and justice. In Data power in action (pp. 21-41). Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.51952/9781529233551.ch002
  40. Latham, A., & Layton, J. (2019). Social infrastructure and the public life of cities: Studying urban sociality and public spaces. Geography Compass, 13(7), e12444. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12444
  41. Lawton, M. P. (1986). Environment and aging. Center for the Study of Aging, University of Florida. ISBN 0818503785, 9780818503788
  42. Lawton, M. P., & Nahemow, L. (1973). Ecology and the aging process. In C. Eisdorfer & M. P. Lawton (Eds.), The psy-chology of adult development and aging (pp. 619–674). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10044-020
  43. Lui, C. W., Everingham, J. A., Warburton, J., Cuthill, M., & Bartlett, H. (2009). What makes a community age-friendly: A review of international literature. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 28(3), 116–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6612.2009.00355.x
  44. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262620017, 0262620014
  45. Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., de Vries, S., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2006). Green space, urbanity, and health: How strong is the relation? Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 60(7), 587–592. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2005.043125
  46. Macniven, L., Dickson, A., & Gow, A. J. (2024). The potential of low traffic measures for healthy active ageing. Urban, Planning and Transport Research, 12(1), 2329202. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650020.2024.2329202
  47. Madanipour, A. (2010). Whose public space? International case studies in urban design and development. Routledge. ISBN 9780415553865
  48. Makanadar, A. (2024). Neuro-adaptive architecture: Buildings and city design that respond to human emotions, cogni-tive states. Research in Globalization, 8, 100222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resglo.2024.100222
  49. Mallgrave, H. F. (2015). Architecture and embodiment: The implications of the new sciences and humanities for design. Routledge. ISBN 9780415810203
  50. Mallgrave, H. F. (2018). From Object to Experience: The New Culture of Architectural Design. Bloomsbury Publish-ing. ISBN 9781350059542.
  51. Marquardt, G. (2011). Wayfinding for people with dementia: A review of the role of architectural design. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 4(2), 75-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/19375867110040020
  52. Marquardt, G., Bueter, K., & Motzek, T. (2014). Impact of the design of the built environment on people with demen-tia: An evidence-based review. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 8(1), 127–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/193758671400800111
  53. Marston, H. R., Niles-Yokum, K., & Silva, P. A. (2021). A Commentary on Blue Zones®: A critical review of age-friendly environments in the 21st century and beyond. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(2), 837. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020837
  54. Maton, K. (2014). Knowledge and knowers: Towards a realist sociology of education. Routledge. ISBN 9781138903050
  55. McCann, E., & Ward, K. (2011). Mobile urbanism: Cities and policymaking in the global age. Environment and Planning. Minneapolis, USA. ISBN 9780816656288
  56. Means, R. (2007). Safe as houses? Ageing in place and vulnerable older people in the UK. Social Policy & Administration, 41(1), 65-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2007.00539.x
  57. Menec, V. H., Means, R., Keating, N., Parkhurst, G., & Eales, J. (2011). Conceptualizing age-friendly communities. Cana-dian Journal on Aging, 30(3), 479–493. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980811000237
  58. Metzger, C. (2018). Neuroarchitektur. In Neuroarchitektur. Jovis. ISBN 9783868594683
  59. Milgram, S. (1982). The experience of living in cities. Science, New Series, Vol. 167, No. 3924. (Mar. 13, 1970), pp. 1461-1468. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0036-8075%2819700313%293%3A167%3A3924%3C1461%3ATEOLIC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4
  60. Muller, J. (2012). Forms of knowledge and curriculum coherence. In Educating for the Knowledge Economy? (pp. 114-138). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203817698
  61. OECD/European Commission. (2015). Ageing in cities. OECD Publishing. OECD Urban Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264231160-en
  62. OECD/European Commission (2020). Cities in the World: A New Perspective on Urbanisation. OECD Urban Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/d0efcbda-en
  63. OECD/European Commission. (2025). Cities for All Ages (Compact City policy in Japan section). OECD Urban Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/f0c8fefa-en
  64. Owsley, C. (2011). Aging and vision. Vision Research, 51(13), 1610–1622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2010.10.020
  65. Park, D. C., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. (2009). The adaptive brain: Aging and neurocognitive scaffolding. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 173–196. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093656
  66. Peace, S., Holland, C., & Kellaher, L. (2006). Environment and identity in later life. Open University Press. UK. ISBN 0-335-21512-2, 978-0-335-21512-6
  67. Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2015). Fast policy: Experimental statecraft at the thresholds of neoliberalism. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 9780816677313
  68. Pérez, K., Palència, L., López, M. J., León-Gómez, B. B., Puig-Ribera, A., Gómez-Gutiérrez, A., Nieuwenhuijsen, M., Car-rasco-Turigas, G., & Borrell, C. (2025). Environmental and health effects of the Barcelona superblocks. BMC Pub-lic Health, 25(1), 634.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-21835-z
  69. Petersen, R. C., Lopez, O., Armstrong, M. J., et al. (2018). Mild cognitive impairment. Nature Reviews Disease Primers, 4, 17042. https://doi.org/10.1212/CON.0000000000000313
  70. Phillipson, C. (2010). Globalisation, global ageing and intergenerational change. In Ageing and intergenerational rela-tions (pp. 13-28). Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.51952/9781847422064.ch002
  71. Power, M. (2007). Organized uncertainty: Designing a world of risk management. Oxford University Press.
  72. Puyané, M., Chabrera, C., Camón, E. et al. Uncovering the impact of loneliness in ageing populations: a comprehensive scoping review. BMC Geriatr 25, 244 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-025-05846-4
  73. Rémillard-Boilard, S. (2020). Developing age-friendly cities: a public policy perspective [Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion]. The University of Manchester (United Kingdom).
  74. Rodrik, D., Juhász, R., & Lane, N. (2023). The new economics of industrial policy. Annual Review of Economics, 16, 213-242. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-081023-024638
  75. Rose, N., & Abi-Rached, J. M. (2013). Neuro: The new brain sciences and the management of the mind. Princeton Uni-versity Press. ISBN 9780691149615
  76. Rugel, E. J., Chow, C. K., Corsi, D. J., et al. (2022). Developing indicators of age-friendly neighbourhood environments for urban and rural communities across 20 countries. BMC Public Health, 22, 87. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12438-5
  77. Rydin, Y., Bleahu, A., Davies, M., Dávila, J. D., Friel, S., De Grandis, G., Groce, N., Hallal, P. C., Hamilton, I., Howden-Chapman, P., Lai, K. M., Lim, C. J., Martins, J., Osrin, D., Ridley, I., Scott, I., Taylor, M., & Wilkinson, P. (2012). Shaping cities for health: Complexity and the planning of urban environments in the 21st century. The Lancet, 379(9831), 2079–2108. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60435-8
  78. Salthouse, T. A. (2010). Major issues in cognitive aging. Oxford University Press.
  79. Skinner, M. W., Andrews, G. J., & Cutchin, M. P. (2018). Geographical gerontology: Perspectives, concepts, approaches. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315281216
  80. Soja, E. W. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 9780816666683
  81. Stirling, A. (2010). Keep it complex. Nature, 468(7327), 1029–1031. https://doi.org/10.1038/4681029a
  82. Sugiyama, T., Ward Thompson, C., & Alves, S. (2009). Associations between neighborhood open space attributes and quality of life for older people in Britain. Environment and Behavior, 41(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916507311688
  83. Sun, Y., Fang, Y., Yung, E. H., Chao, T. Y. S., & Chan, E. H. (2020). Investigating the links between environment and older people’s place attachment in densely populated urban areas. Landscape and urban Planning, 203, 103897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103897
  84. Townsend, A. M. (2013). Smart cities: Big data, civic hackers, and the quest for a new utopia. W. W. Norton & Compa-ny. ISBN-10 0393082873
  85. Ulrich, R. S., Zimring, C., Zhu, X., DuBose, J., Seo, H. B., Choi, Y. S., Quan, X., & Joseph, A. (2008). A review of the re-search literature on evidence-based healthcare design. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 1(3), 61–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/193758670800100306
  86. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
  87. United Nations. (2020). New Urban Agenda. United Nations. https://unhabitat.org/about-us/new-urban-agenda
  88. UN-Habitat. (2022). World Cities Report 2022: Envisaging the Future of Cities. United Nations. https://unhabitat.org/world-cities-report-2022-envisaging-the-future-of-cities.
  89. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs/DESA. (2019). World population ageing 2019: Highlights. United Nations. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3846855?ln=en&v=pdf
  90. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs/DESA. (2018). World urbanization prospects: The 2018 revision. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/desa/2018-revision-world-urbanization-prospects
  91. UNESCO, Digital learning and transformation of education. https://www.unesco.org/en/digital-education/future-proof
  92. van Hoof, J., Kazak, J. K., Perek-Białas, J. M., & Peek, S. (2018). The challenges of urban ageing: Making cities age-friendly in Europe. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(11), 2473. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112473
  93. van Hoof, J., Dikken, J., Buttigieg, S. C., van den Hoven, R. F. M., Kroon, E., & Marston, H. R. (2020). Age-friendly cities in the Netherlands: An explorative study of facilitators and hindrances in the built environment and ageism in de-sign. Indoor and Built Environment, 29(3), 417–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X19857216
  94. Vecchiato, G., Tieri, G., Jelic, A., De Matteis, F., Maglione, A. G., & Babiloni, F. (2015). Electroencephalographic corre-lates of sensorimotor integration and embodiment during the appreciation of virtual architectural environments. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 1944. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01944
  95. Wahl, H.-W., & Lang, F. R. (2003). Aging in context across the adult life course: Integrating physical and social environ-mental research perspectives. Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 23, 1–33.
  96. Webber, S. C., Porter, M. M., & Menec, V. H. (2010). Mobility in older adults: a comprehensive framework. The geron-tologist, 50(4), 443-450. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnq013
  97. Williams, V. (2011). Disability and discourse: Analysing inclusive conversation with people with intellectual disabilities. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9780470682661
  98. Wiener, J. M., & Pazzaglia, F. (2021). Ageing-and dementia-friendly design: theory and evidence from cognitive psy-chology, neuropsychology and environmental psychology can contribute to design guidelines that minimise spa-tial disorientation. Cognitive processing, 22(4), 715-730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-021-01031-8
  99. Wolniak, R., & Stecuła, K. (2024). Artificial intelligence in smart cities—applications, barriers, and future directions: a review. Smart cities, 7(3), 1346-1389. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities7030057
  100. World Health Organization. (2007). Global age-friendly cities: A guide. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241547307
  101. World Health Organization. (2007a). WHO age-friendly cities project methodology: Vancouver protocol. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/ageing/publications/afc_vancouver_protocol.pdf
  102. World Health Organization. (2015). Measuring the Age-friendliness of Cities: A Guide to Using Core Indicators. WHO. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241509695.
  103. World Health Organization, & UN-Habitat. (2018). Global network for age-friendly cities and communities: Looking back over the last decade, looking forward to the next. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-FWC-ALC-18.4
  104. Yigitcanlar, T., David, A., Li, W., Fookes, C., Bibri, S. E., & Ye, X. (2024). Unlocking artificial intelligence adoption in local governments: Best practice lessons from real-world implementations. Smart Cities, 7(4), 1576-1625. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities7040064
  105. Young, M. (2008). Bringing knowledge back in: From social constructivism to social realism in the sociology of educa-tion. Routledge. ISBN 9780415321211
  106. Young, M. (2013). Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory: A knowledge-based approach. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.764505
  107. Young, M., & Muller, J. (2010). Three educational scenarios for the future: Lessons from the sociology of knowledge. European Journal of Education, 45(1), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2009.01413.x
  108. Zeisel, J. (2006). Inquiry by design: Environment/behavior/neuroscience in architecture, interiors, landscape, and plan-ning. W. W. Norton & Company.
  109. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Publi-cAffairs. ISBN 9781610395694