Co-creation and Co-design Processes 

Emma Galli, Sapienza University of Rome

Definition

Co-creation and co-design processes in urban policies refer to participatory methodologies in which multiple stakeholders—citizens, planners, policymakers, and private actors—collaborate to shape urban environments. These processes aim to foster the development of place- and evidence-based solutions in response to the challenges the community faces, as well as inclusive decision-making, ensuring that urban development aligns with the needs and aspirations of local communities. Co-creation involves engaging residents and experts in the early stages of policy-making, promoting transparency and collaborative governance. However, numerous studies have shown that these concepts encompass different levels of participation (Arnstein, 1969; Bacqué & Gauthier, 2011; Le Maire-Moetwil, 2014). Co-design, a subset of co-creation, applies design thinking methodologies to urban planning, allowing for iterative feedback cycles to refine policies and interventions. These approaches are widely used in areas such as public space design, housing policies, transportation planning, and innovative city initiatives. By integrating diverse perspectives, co-creation and co-design enhance urban resilience, social equity, and sustainability. Their effectiveness depends on structured facilitation, open communication, and a genuine commitment from local governments to empower citizens rather than consult them. The co-creation and co-design processes create preconditions for co-implementation, involving stakeholders in the process of solution implementation. 

Background information and contemporary debate 

The principles of co-creation and co-design in urban policies stem from participatory planning movements that emerged in the mid-20th century. Early urban theorists, such as Jane Jacobs, advocated for bottom-up approaches that prioritise local knowledge over top-down urban planning. By the 1990s and early 2000s, the rise of deliberative democracy and digital engagement tools expanded the scope of participatory urban governance. Scholars such as Ezio Manzini and Charles Landry contributed to the theoretical and practical frameworks supporting co-creative urban development. The proliferation of innovative city initiatives and data-driven governance has further accelerated the adoption of co-design methods in city planning. Many cities today utilise digital platforms, urban living labs, and community workshops to incorporate citizen input into their planning processes. These approaches acknowledge that cities are complex, dynamic systems and that successful urban policies require continuous adaptation, engagement, and collaboration among diverse urban actors.

The contemporary debate on co-creation and co-design in urban policies centres on their feasibility, impact, and inclusivity. Advocates argue that these processes democratise urban governance, allowing citizens to take an active role in shaping their environment. Successful cases, such as participatory budgeting in cities like Paris and Porto Alegre, demonstrate how direct citizen involvement can lead to a more equitable distribution of resources. Similarly, urban living labs in European cities have facilitated innovation by bringing together policymakers, businesses, and residents to collaboratively test and refine urban solutions. 

However, critics highlight the challenges of implementing co-creation at scale. Research has shown that although these forms of collaboration can lead to social innovations, the results are often contingent, temporary, and challenging to integrate into prevailing structures and practices of governing cities. Moreover, the legitimacy of such actions and their results can be questioned as well as the degree of inclusiveness of diverse social groups. Genuine participation requires significant time, resources, and institutional willingness to cede control, which is not always present. Additionally, power imbalances within communities can result in the dominance of well-organised groups while marginalised voices remain unheard. There is also the risk of co-creation being reduced to a tokenistic exercise, where governments use it as a symbolic gesture rather than a substantive policy-making tool. Another concern is the reliance on digital platforms for participation, which can exclude non-tech-savvy or lower-income residents. As cities continue to experiment with co-creative approaches, the focus remains on improving accessibility, ensuring inclusivity, and embedding these practices into long-term governance frameworks.

References

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. JAIP, 35(4), 216-224.

Bacqué, M.-H., & Gauthier, M. (2011). Participation, urbanisme et études urbaines Quatre décennies de débats et d’expériences depuis. A ladder of citizen participation. Participations, 1(1), 36-66. https://doi.org/10.3917/parti.001.0036

Le Maire-Moetwil, J. (2014). Lieux, biens, liens communs: émergence d’une grammaire participative en architecture et urbanisme, 1904-1969. Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.

Eneqvist, E., Algehed, J., Jensen, C., & Karvonen, A. (2022). Legitimacy in municipal experimental governance: Questioning the public good in urban innovation practices. European Planning Studies, 30(8), 1596–1614. doi:10.1080/09654313.2021.2015749

Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation. MIT Press.

Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2014). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505