Anna Martin

Defining deliberative democracy  Deliberative democracy is a form of democracy that emphasizes the role of discussion and deliberation in the decision-making process. Unlike traditional democratic models that prioritize voting and the aggregation of preferences, deliberative democracy focuses on the quality and process of debate among citizens. The core idea is that through reasoned argument, dialogue, and the exchange of ideas, participants can reach more informed, reflective, and legitimate decisions. In a deliberative democracy, participants are encouraged to engage in discussions that are open, equal, and inclusive. This means that all participants have an equal opportunity to speak, be heard, and influence the outcome. The deliberative process typically involves several key components. Key components of deliberative democracy Inclusiveness: Ensures that all those affected by a decision have the opportunity to participate in the deliberation, including marginalized and minority voices (Rasmussen, 1994). Reason-giving: Expects participants to provide reasons for their positions and engage with the reasons provided by others, fostering understanding, social learning, and respect. Respect and civility: Essential requirements for a respectful and civil exchange of ideas, listening to each other, and refraining from personal attacks. Informed and rational discourse: Encourages participants to have access to relevant information and engage in critical thinking to evaluate different arguments. Consensus-orientation: Despite possible conflicting and plurality of views and values on the issue under scrutiny it is crucial to reach decisions that reconcile and are acceptable to all participants, or at least to the majority, while respecting minority opinions. It therefore has transformative potential. Deliberative democracy aims to harness the "forceless force of the better argument" (Habermas, 1975, 108) in an environment that is tolerant of dissent. It can take various forms, including citizens' assemblies, deliberative polls, and participatory budgeting, designed to facilitate structured and meaningful dialogue among diverse groups of people. This approach helps form a “we-perspective” (Rostbøll, 2008). Positioning deliberative democracy If we were to position deliberative democracy within the spectrum of existing democratic models (see image 1), it would likely fall between direct democracy and representative democracy. Direct democracy aims to include an impractically large number of participants, while representative democracy often creates significant distances between representatives and those they represent. For Habermas, the essence of democracy lies in discourse (Habermas, 1996), rejecting the utilitarian approach. A deliberative approach does not need to ignore the practicalities of representative democracy but can address the “imbalance between the vertical and the horizontal dimensions of democracy” (Hansen et al., 2016). The guiding principles of deliberative democracy Deliberative democracy finds its guiding principles in discursive ethics as it prioritizes reasoned dialogue and inclusive discourse to achieve collective decision-making that respects the inherent worth and equality of all participants. Both Habermas and Dryzek emphasize that ethical discourse and rational deliberation are essential for achieving mutual understanding and consensus in democratic processes. Habermas is a central figure in developing the theory of discourse ethics, which forms the philosophical foundation for his concept of deliberative democracy. One key aspect is communicative rationality. Habermas’s concept of communicative rationality emphasizes the role of reasoned discourse in achieving mutual understanding and consensus. In ´The Theory of Communicative Action´(1984), Habermas argues that democratic legitimacy arises from free and open dialogue where participants justify their claims through rational arguments. This idea is essential for deliberative democracy, which relies on inclusive and reasoned discussion to make collective decisions. It was Habermas who introduced the notion of the ideal speech situation (1983), where communication is free from coercion and participants have equal opportunities to speak and be heard. This ideal situation is crucial for ethical discourse, ensuring that decisions are reached through fair and unbiased deliberation. In his work (Between Facts and Norms, 1996), Habermas connects discourse ethics directly to democratic theory by arguing that legitimate laws and policies must be justified through public deliberation. He contends that the legitimacy of democratic decisions hinges on the quality of the deliberative process, aligning with the core principles of deliberative democracy. John Dryzek extends Habermas's ideas, emphasizing practical and inclusive aspects of deliberative democracy. He argues that legitimate democratic decision-making requires incorporating diverse discourses and perspectives (1990). He builds on Habermas's idea of communicative rationality, advocating for a democracy that is open to multiple forms of communication and expression, thus ensuring a more inclusive and representative deliberative process. Dryzek (2006) argues for the empowerment of marginalized voices in deliberative processes. He stresses that genuine deliberative democracy must engage all affected individuals, reflecting Habermas’s ethical concern for inclusivity and equality in discourse. Additionally, Dryzek (2010) focuses on the practical aspects of implementing deliberative democracy. He discusses real-world applications and challenges, drawing from Habermas’s theoretical framework but adapting it to diverse political contexts. Dryzek emphasizes the importance of creating institutional arrangements that facilitate effective and fair deliberation. Both Habermas and Dryzek see discourse ethics as integral to the functioning of deliberative democracy. Habermas provides the theoretical and ethical groundwork, while Dryzek offers practical insights and adaptations for real-world democratic practices. Together, they underscore the importance of rational, inclusive, and ethical deliberation in achieving democratic legitimacy. The relevance of deliberative democracy in affordable and sustainable housing  Deliberative democracy is particularly relevant to the development of affordable and sustainable housing policies. Housing issues are complex and multifaceted, involving economic, social, environmental, and political dimensions. A deliberative approach to housing policy can address these complexities in several ways. By including a wide range of stakeholders—residents, developers, policymakers, and community organizations—deliberative processes ensure that the voices of those most affected by housing decisions are heard. This inclusivity can lead to more equitable and just outcomes. Deliberative democracy emphasizes the importance of reasoned debate and evidence-based decision-making, which is crucial in housing policy where decisions need to balance affordability with sustainability, and economic feasibility with social equity. Achieving consensus can help build broad-based support and legitimacy for the resulting policies, particularly important in contentious areas such as land use planning, zoning regulations, and the allocation of resources for housing development. The deliberative process encourages creative problem-solving by bringing together diverse perspectives, leading to innovative solutions that might not emerge from more traditional, top-down decision-making processes. Especially when it comes to issues that have a direct and significant impact on everyone's lives, such as housing policy. Decision-making should not just fall into the remit of technocrats and politicians. The housing question should be opened up to public deliberation, as has happened in other spheres of urban planning and governance with experiences like participatory budgeting in Belo Horizonte or Porto Alegre (Baiocchi, 2005; Cabannes, 2004; Melo & Baiocchi, 2006). Deliberative democracy and public reasoning can be used as a means for more representative and equitable housing-led regeneration processes to ensure that projects are in the best interests of those directly affected and maximise social value. The democratisation of housing management can also be attained by incorporating the principles of deliberative democracy. Giving tenants more control over decision-making can have a transformative impact on the long-term sustainability of housing schemes. Sustainable housing requires long-term thinking, and deliberative democracy fosters a more holistic approach to policy-making, planning and building, taking into account the long-term consequences of decisions and the need for sustainable development. Possible implementation in the housing landscape Clapham & Foye (2019) identify three levels in which deliberative democracy can be a powerful tool to facilitate housing-related decision-making processes and evaluate housing outcomes: Dwelling scale: Standards developed to set minimum qualities of the housing stock should incorporate a component informed by bottom-up consultation that incorporates residents’ views on what constitutes a decent home. In this way, publicly discussed aspirations and needs are brought together with more quantitative and technical considerations. One example of this is the Living Home Standard, developed by Shelter (2016) following a broad consultation process in which hundreds of members of the public were convened in focus groups and workshops to define what a home means and to identify its key and most valuable elements. In doing so, the process provided the elements necessary for a meaningful exchange, public discussion and debate between participants, in which diverse viewpoints were included. Neighbourhood scale: In his reflections on the ideal size of a city, Aristotle determined a roughly appropriate size based on various characteristics that would ensure its self-sufficiency. Just as important as having access to resources, in his view, was the successful administration of a city, which had to be linked to democratic processes and wellbeing considerations (Lianos, 2016). In such an arrangement, the debate is direct, open and face-to-face. In modern-day terms, at the neighbourhood level, the local context enables a type of relationship between citizens and the city in which they recognise themselves and have a tangible interest in the issues under discussion because it is at the local scale where consequences of ill-considered decisions can have a greater impact. Sennett (2018) identifies similar characteristics in Jane Jacobs’ understanding of a well-functioning neighbourhood as the generative unit of a vibrant and thriving city. In this case, direct democracy practised at the neighbourhood level would constitute, by addition of the parts, a more democratic city. At this level, the relevant stakeholders are expected to play an active role in the participation process because of their attachment to the place. Examples include neighbourhood renewal processes, urban planning and development projects, refurbishment of housing estates or the creation of a local plan. National scale: Although often seen as terrain for more vertical forms of democratic arrangements such as representative democracy, Clapham & Foye (2019) propose deliberative democratic forums held at a national level to discuss highly political issues around housing, such as property tax relief, lad value tax abatements, house price inflation, rent reform, etc. This view aligns with that of Marcuse & Madden (2016), who call for the democratisation of the housing system as a necessary step in devising transformative solutions to the housing crisis worldwide. In order to rebalance the existing power relations, decision-making control should be handed over to those who are “the true experts on their own housing” (p.212), i.e. to those who are oppressed by the current system. A process that relies on a truly democratised housing system, i.e. a system that is open and inclusive enough to allow for broader democratic scrutiny and ensure that the input of non-experts and historically disempowered communities is accounted for. In summary, deliberative democracy provides a framework for developing a housing system that is not only affordable and sustainable but also inclusive, equitable, and widely supported by the community. By fostering open, informed, and respectful dialogue, deliberative processes can lead to more effective and legitimate housing solutions that meet the diverse needs of society.  

Energy communities are local collectives that organize the production, distribution, and consumption of energy. These communities aim to increase local energy self-sufficiency, reduce energy costs, and promote the use of renewable energy sources. They are usually founded by citizens, local authorities, or other entities and often involve collaborative management and shared ownership of energy resources. Legal context The European Commission’s Clean Energy Package establishes new legal frameworks that recognize the rights of citizens and communities to participate directly in the energy sector. It defines energy communities under two directives: the Renewable Energy Directive (EU) 2018/2001 for ‘renewable energy communities,’ which focuses on renewable energy, and the Internal Electricity Market Directive (EU) 2019/944 for ‘citizen energy communities,’ which includes all types of electricity. These directives outline energy communities as collective citizen actions within the energy system. Energy communities are characterized as non-commercial market entities that pursue environmental and social objectives. The directives ensure that energy communities can compete fairly in the market without distorting competition or neglecting the rights and obligations that apply to other market participants. Structure and organization Energy communities can take on different legal and organizational forms, including cooperatives, non-profits, limited liability companies, or informal associations. The choice of structure often depends on the local regulatory environment, the specific goals of the community, and the preferences of its members. Key features of energy communities include democratic decision-making processes, shared ownership of energy assets, and a focus on local benefits. Members of an energy community typically have a say in major decisions, such as the type of renewable energy technology to adopt, how to finance projects, and how to distribute benefits (Koirala et al., 2016; Walker & Devine-Wright, 2008). Goals and Objectives The primary goals of energy communities are to promote renewable energy production, enhance energy efficiency, and increase local energy resilience. By generating energy locally from renewable sources such as solar, wind, or biomass, these communities aim to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels and lower their carbon footprint. Energy efficiency measures, such as retrofitting buildings or promoting energy-saving behaviors, help to reduce overall energy consumption. Additionally, by decentralizing energy production and creating local energy networks, energy communities can enhance energy security and resilience against external shocks, such as power outages or price volatility in energy markets (European Commission, 2020; Hicks & Ison, 2018). Benefits Energy communities offer a multifaceted array of benefits. Economically, they empower communities by locally generating and managing energy, thereby lowering energy costs and generating additional income through surplus energy sales. Moreover, they stimulate job growth in the renewable energy sector, from installation to management roles. Environmentally, energy communities champion sustainability by promoting renewable energy sources and reducing greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency measures (REN21, 2019; Bauwens et al., 2016). Socially, they serve as catalysts for community cohesion, fostering collaboration, knowledge-sharing, and support among members. Lastly, they bolster energy security and resilience by decentralizing energy production, minimizing reliance on centralized systems, and implementing local energy storage solutions and microgrids to mitigate supply disruptions (Hicks & Ison, 2018; Koirala et al., 2016). These interconnected benefits underscore the vital role energy communities play in fostering sustainable, resilient, and empowered communities. Challenges Energy communities, while offering numerous benefits, face a variety of obstacles that hinder their advancement and sustainability. Significant regulatory barriers exist, particularly in regions where current energy regulations may not support the decentralized energy generation and communal ownership principles of these communities. This situation requires careful negotiation of regulatory frameworks and the acquisition of permits (European Commission, 2020; Hicks & Ison, 2018). Financial limitations present another formidable barrier, as financing renewable energy endeavors and energy efficiency initiatives demands substantial initial investment, often requiring a blend of funding sources such as member contributions, grants, loans, and subsidies, which can be particularly daunting for smaller communities with limited financial means (Bauwens et al., 2016; Walker et al., 2010). Possessing technical expertise is crucial for deploying and overseeing renewable energy systems. This underscores the need for investments in training and capacity-building initiatives to empower community members with the necessary skills and knowledge. Furthermore, fostering robust community engagement emerges as a critical challenge, demanding concerted efforts to ensure all members are adequately informed, engaged, and motivated to partake in communal endeavors, underpinned by transparent decision-making processes, effective communication, and the cultivation of a sense of ownership and shared responsibility (Walker & Devine-Wright, 2008; Seyfang et al., 2013). Future Implications The concept of energy communities aligns with broader trends in the energy sector, including the decentralization of energy production, the transition to renewable energy sources, and the increasing importance of community participation in energy systems. As technology advances and regulatory frameworks evolve, energy communities are likely to play an increasingly significant role in the energy transition (European Commission, 2020; Koirala et al., 2016). The Citizen participation and community co-ownership in energy projects play a vital role by increasing public involvement in energy issues and acceptance of renewable energy. These energy communities prioritize local benefits over profits, generating financial gains, local investments, and social advantages. They enhance democratic decision-making and control over renewable energy, although there is a risk of creating social disparities between wealthier members and those less affluent. Energy communities provide opportunities for lower-income individuals to engage in electricity markets and can help alleviate energy poverty through initiatives that lower energy bills and improve social conditions. A comprehensive EU-wide study would help assess their potential in reducing energy poverty and their impact on sustainable energy behaviors. Energy communities support renewable energy adoption, offer flexibility services, and improve network operations. By 2030, they could own significant shares of renewable energy capacity in Europe. They introduce new business models in the power sector and provide local flexibility services, but their integration must ensure cost-efficiency for all customers. Further research and innovation in energy communities can enhance citizen engagement and technological adoption. More studies are needed to quantify their benefits and support their development. Final remarks Energy communities represent a powerful model for local, sustainable, and inclusive energy systems. By empowering citizens to take control of their energy production and consumption, these communities can drive the transition to renewable energy, enhance local energy security, and deliver a wide range of economic, environmental, and social benefits. Despite the challenges, the growing interest in and support for energy communities suggest that they will continue to play a crucial role in shaping the future of energy systems worldwide.

The discussion on housing regimes dates back to e neo-institutional turn in policy research which occurred during the 1980s. This literature viewed institutions not so much as “formal” entities but more as the culmination of conflicting power relations, market dynamics, and ideology. The study of these dynamics could, in turn, be used to understand the variegated development of post-war welfare states, as exemplified by Esping-Andersen’s seminal Three worlds of welfare capitalism (1990). Kemeny defined the housing regime as “the social, political, and economic system of housing supply, distribution, and consumption, which determines the housing market opportunities of a certain period” (1981, p. 13). His framework follows the logic of the historical and institutional structure of society. Kemeny (2006) argues that, due to the central role of real estate in modern capitalism, housing systems follow similar paths, albeit with  different logics. Studying the emergence of regimes of a different nature between countries, he distinguished between unitary and dualized housing regimes, based on their rental-market systems, that is: (a) countries with an open private sector but with a firmly regulated public sector are characterized by a dual rental market; and (b) societies where the private and public sectors are strictly regulated have a unitary rental market. In dualist countries (primarily the Anglo-Saxon ones), homeownership is commonplace, while in countries with an integrated/unitary system (such as Germany, Netherlands, and Scandinavian countries) renting is a realistic and even competitive alternative to ownership. Kemeny highlighted that the dominance of homeownership is not organically developed but is socially and politically constructed. The above conceptualization of housing regime based on the functioning of rental market systems does not mirror the (Foucaultian) political and conflictual approach of Clapham, for whom a housing regime stands for a “set of discourses and social, economic and political practices that influence the provision, allocation, consumption [of housing] and housing outcomes in a given country” (2019, p. 24). He views policy as an arena where actors “negotiate and bargain” through discursive processes (Ruonavaara, 2020b). Clapham clearly distinguishes regime types from housing regimes. Regime types are useful for categorization since they can function as a baseline for comparative studies. However, “every housing regime is unique”(Ruonavaara, 2020b). Because of the complexity of the concept, Clapham (2019, p.17) proposes a three-stage analysis for housing policy (Figure 1). Ruonavaara (2020b) finds Clapham’s approach nuanced but too general and broad, which – according to him - makes it less applicable. On the other hand, Hegedüs (2020) considers Clapham’s (2002) housing pathway reasonable, as it describes housing provision forms as a result of interactions. In line with Clapham, he argues that “interventions within the housing system can only be understood in the context of interactions between different housing market actors” (Hegedüs, 2020, p. 569). Consequently, an analysis that only focuses on the rental sector would lead to narrowed interpretations with low explanatory power. More recently, Ruonavaara provided a new definition of housing regimes, which combines the elements of previous theories. He defined housing regime as a “set of fundamental principles according to which housing provision operates in some defined area (municipality, region, state) at a particular point in time” (2020a, p. 10). These principles are present in discourses, institutional arrangements, and political interventions. All actors have certain principles when operating in the system of housing provision at a given time and place. Housing regimes can be considered as the “principles of operation” (Ruonavaara, 2020a). In this sense, the housing regime concept faces challenges in its ability to represent an effective analytical tool for today’s housing systems. For Stephens (2020), it is necessary to rethink housing regime as a way to find middle-range theories given that current accounts of neoliberal convergence (Aalbers, 2016; Clapham, 2019) barely manage to explain the role of regime path-dependences in continuing to shape variegated housing outcomes.

Precariat The term 'precariat' is a compound word formed from 'precarious' and 'proletariat'. (Standing, 2011). It refers to a group of individuals who face precarious employment conditions and may lack stable income and living circumstances. ‘Precarity’ encompasses the broader context, including the causes and conditions leading to this uncertainty of existence. When we describe a situation or relationship as ‘precarious,’ we mean it is characterized by instability and uncertainty. Belonging to the precariat does not confer a status; it is "not ... a status concept, but a condition concept" (LaVaque-Manty 2009, 107). Nowadays, the precariat is part of the everyday and public discourse, representing the essence of new poverty. As market-driven economic structures have evolved, traditional forms of employment and social safety nets have become less secure, leading to increased uncertainty and vulnerability for many individuals. The term 'precariat' was coined by Standing (2011) to describe a 'class-in-the-making' comprised of individuals distinct from other social classes, such as the salariat (those with stable full-time employment) and the proletariat (the traditional working class), due to their unique set of challenges and experiences related to precariousness—lack of security and predictability in various aspects of their lives. Standing´s definition of the precariat generated an active academic, public, and political debate about its meaning and scope, leading to its reinterpretation and broadening. In the Great British Class Survey (GBCS) (2013), the precariat was classified as the lowest social class. However, it encompasses more than just unemployed individuals or the working poor. According to Foti (2017), the precariat includes both emergent service workers and the low-wage workers in commerce, government, and industry. Additionally, Butler (2015) argues that precarity is a “condition in which certain populations suffer from failing social and economic networks of support more than others” (p. 144). The precariat emerges as a consequence of neoliberal ideology, which has shaped public policies by prioritizing market principles and integrating them into policy discussions and decision-making processes. Castel (2007) and Polanyi (2004) have emphasized that the proliferation of precarity and the uncertainty regarding the future impact a larger portion of the population than is commonly perceived. Precariousness, as a state of insecurity and instability,  surpasses conventional class distinctions and indicators of social status such as income, employment, and education (Waldron, 2021). As Standing (2011) stated: “Falling into the precariat could happen to most of us, if accidents occurred or a shock wiped out the trappings of security many have come to rely on” (p.59). The central aim of theorizing the precariat is to provide a framework wherein downward social mobility is understood within the broader context of social inequalities (Bukodi and Goldthorpe, 2019). Housing precariat The terms “precariat”, “precarity”, and “precarious” have seldom been utilized in the literature of housing sociology, but housing affordability is a key driver of precarity (Waldron, 2021). Nonetheless, there has been a noticeable surge in their usage within international literature in recent decades (Listerborn, 2021; Waldron, 2023).  Housing precariat can be defined as “a state of uncertainty which increases a person´s real or perceived likelihood of experiencing an adverse event, caused (at least in part) by their relationship with their housing provider, the physical qualities, affordability, security of their home, and access to essential services.” (Clair et al., 2019). The entrenched social inequalities serve as the fundamental cause of the current housing crisis. These disparities have progressively worsened, exacerbated by the expanding precariat—a group experiencing precarious employment due to shifts in the labour market and economy. In this context, the concept of precariat offers a lens to examine the widening gap between wealth and income, leading to economic instability, deteriorating living conditions, heightened unemployment, poverty, and homelessness. Moreover, it underscores the deepening spatial inequalities, evidenced by the rising residential segregation. The operationalization of the precariat in housing research presents challenges, particularly considering the distinctive shifts in the labour market and life trajectories of wage earners in Europe, with added complexities in Eastern Europe due to its intricate historical development. In this context, the precariat transcends specific historical periods; its dynamic nature is best understood through real-life scenarios. This juncture offers an opportunity to delve into its contemporary significance and its potential as a valuable tool for examining various social phenomena. These include household behaviours, housing-related issues stemming from interactions between authorities, institutions, and households, as well as diverse mechanisms, particularly within local and national contexts. It is essential to recognize that precarious housing does not necessarily reflect the housing conditions of individuals within the precariat.

Trauma informed design  is a new and evolving approach to designing the built environment that considers the potential impact of trauma on people's experiences and needs. It is based on the principles of trauma-informed care (Di Raimo, 2022), which recognizes that trauma can profoundly impact all aspects of a person's life. Accordingly, designers consider how the physical environment can help people feel safe, connected, empowered, and supported. Both trauma informed design (TID) and trauma informed care acknowledge that trauma can profoundly impact all aspects of a person's life, including their physical and mental health, cognitive functioning, behaviour, and relationships. In a TID process, all decisions about the physical environment are filtered through the overlapping lenses of psychology, neuroscience, physiology, and cultural factors (Bollo & Donofrio, 2021; Di Raimo, 2022) (Owen & Crane, 2022). TID environments are uniquely designed to meet the needs of the intended users, recognizing that what is helpful and healing for one person may not be for another.  TID builds on the "ability of architects to listen to the potential users" (Di Raimo, 2022). Designers should think about how people will feel in the living space, both physically and emotionally. They must consider: (1) how the space can help people feel comfortable (safety and trust), (2) how the space facilitates community-building possibilities and practices (sense of belonging, opportunities for social interactions and collaborations), and (3) how the space can suit/serve different needs, where people have the right to make their own choices (empowerment and adaptability of the environment in order to creating spaces that are flexible and adaptable to personal needs, for example, facilitating, adjustable furniture and accessible amenities). These are some examples of how to create a comfortable and supportive home for people, considering TID principles: (1) Open corridors with cues and landmarks can help people with cognitive impairments or mobility issues to navigate the space more easily. (2) Natural light can improve mood and well-being. (3) Artwork depicting natural elements, such as plants and landscapes, can also positively impact mood and well-being. Abstract art can be overstimulating for some people, so it is best to avoid it in this setting. (4) Colours such as blue, green, and purple are less arousing than other colours, so they can help create a calming and relaxing environment. (5) Natural materials like wood and stone can create a warm and inviting atmosphere. (6) Home design with commercial sustainability can help reduce the home's environmental impact and make it more affordable to operate. (7) People need a certain degree of privacy, even in a communal setting (e.g., by providing locking cabinets and lockers). (8) People should be able to personalize their living space to make it feel like home (e.g., by providing things like magnetic writing boards and other items that people can use to express themselves). (9) Open areas for relaxation separate from bedroom, in order to provide people with a place to relax and socialize without having to be in their bedrooms. (10) Soft, comfortable furniture can help people to relax and feel comfortable. (11) Adequate and easy access to services, staff, and counselling to support their needs. (12) Adequate indoor and outdoor playing spaces to assure the physical and mental well-being of children. (13) Adequate separation of men's and women's sleeping and bathroom spaces: to guarantee privacy and safety. (14) Accommodation for pets; since they provide companionship and support, it is essential to consider their needs as well. Apna Ghar said the following about the relevance of TID (Forbes, 2019): "[It] requires realizing how the physical environment affects identity, worth and dignity, and how it promotes empowerment. It requires recognizing that the physical environment has an impact on attitude, mood and behavior because there is a strong link between our physiological state, our emotional state and the physical environment. It also means that intentionally designing and maintaining healing environments leads to empowerment and resists retraumatizing those who have already experienced so much trauma." TID recognizes that people are resilient and can heal from trauma (Di Raimo, 2022). Hence, it encompasses the creation of both physically secure living environments and emotionally and psychologically safe spaces.  It can be applied to a wide range of spaces (Di Raimo, 2022; Anderson, 2010; Gill,2019), including schools, hospitals, offices, service providers, and homes. According to the Preservation of Affordable Housing (2023), TID  can be used to create affordable rental housing that is safe and supportive for residents and staff. TID is not only for vulnerable people. Calming and supportive spaces, appealing colours, comfortable furniture, and natural elements facilitate good health in general. It can improve the well-being of residents, enhance their productivity, and facilitate a more positive work environment in any organization.  TID is more than just a design process, it is a way of listening to the potential users of a space and understanding their needs and experiences in order to link design methods and psychological considerations through the contributions of several disciplines (Bollo & Donofrio, 2019; Bollo & Donofrio, 2021), and to rediscover and consider how the physical environment affects people (Di Raimo, 2022). It is still a relatively underutilized approach to design, but it has the potential to shift the focus from housing to healing, especially in social housing, where the psychological impact of the living environment is particularly important.