Trends and patterns in the application of co-production, co-creation, and co-design methods in studies of green spaces: a systematic review
File(s)
Published version
Author(s)
Nguyen, Ngoc Thuy
Collins, Alexandra
Collins, Catherine Matilda
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Background
Participatory and collaborative approaches such as co-production, co-creation, and co-design have become popular as they encourage meaningful participation of wider stakeholders in research and decision-making processes to ensure that greenspace benefits the local community. There is, however, a need to understand why and how researchers use these approaches and how successful each are. This systematic review synthesizes the existing evidence to provide answers to such questions.
Methods
This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines and includes studies using a co-production, co-design, or co-creation approach to study green spaces. The search was conducted from August to November 2022 in four academic databases, including SCOPUS, Proquest, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost. Thematic analysis was used to analyze and synthesize data. Sixty-one studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed.
Findings
We show that co-production, co-creation, and co-design methods have the potential to increase public engagement and to help develop green spaces that satisfy the needs of communities. To realize the full potential of stakeholder engagement, however, researchers need to consider enablers and constraints such as social capital, the attributes of the stakeholders involved, and the overall research design. The work illustrates some barriers that might restrain effective implementation of such methods. Particularly, the lack of description of the processes and of impact evaluation makes it challenging to understand how they are more effective than conventional participatory approaches in which research subjects or participants play a passive role. In addition, co-production, co-creation, and co-design are largely used interchangeably.
Participatory and collaborative approaches such as co-production, co-creation, and co-design have become popular as they encourage meaningful participation of wider stakeholders in research and decision-making processes to ensure that greenspace benefits the local community. There is, however, a need to understand why and how researchers use these approaches and how successful each are. This systematic review synthesizes the existing evidence to provide answers to such questions.
Methods
This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines and includes studies using a co-production, co-design, or co-creation approach to study green spaces. The search was conducted from August to November 2022 in four academic databases, including SCOPUS, Proquest, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost. Thematic analysis was used to analyze and synthesize data. Sixty-one studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed.
Findings
We show that co-production, co-creation, and co-design methods have the potential to increase public engagement and to help develop green spaces that satisfy the needs of communities. To realize the full potential of stakeholder engagement, however, researchers need to consider enablers and constraints such as social capital, the attributes of the stakeholders involved, and the overall research design. The work illustrates some barriers that might restrain effective implementation of such methods. Particularly, the lack of description of the processes and of impact evaluation makes it challenging to understand how they are more effective than conventional participatory approaches in which research subjects or participants play a passive role. In addition, co-production, co-creation, and co-design are largely used interchangeably.
Date Issued
2024-02
Date Acceptance
2023-11-10
Citation
Environmental Science and Policy, 2024, 152
ISSN
1462-9011
Publisher
Elsevier
Journal / Book Title
Environmental Science and Policy
Volume
152
Copyright Statement
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)
License URL
Identifier
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103642
Publication Status
Published
Article Number
103642
Date Publish Online
2023-11-22