Imperial College London
Portrait Picture

Dr C M (Tilly) Collins

Faculty of Natural Sciences, Centre for Environmental Policy

Senior Teaching Fellow
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

+44 (0)20 7594 9301t.collins Website

 
 
//

Location

 

110aWeeks BuildingSouth Kensington Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Nguyen:2024:10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103642,
author = {Nguyen, NT and Collins, A and Collins, CM},
doi = {10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103642},
journal = {Environmental Science and Policy},
title = {Trends and patterns in the application of co-production, co-creation, and co-design methods in studies of green spaces: a systematic review},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103642},
volume = {152},
year = {2024}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - BackgroundParticipatory 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.MethodsThis 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.FindingsWe 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.
AU  - Nguyen,NT
AU  - Collins,A
AU  - Collins,CM
DO  - 10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103642
PY  - 2024///
SN  - 1462-9011
TI  - Trends and patterns in the application of co-production, co-creation, and co-design methods in studies of green spaces: a systematic review
T2  - Environmental Science and Policy
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103642
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/108731
VL  - 152
ER  -
Download