Urban Planning (ISSN: 2183–7635)

2022, Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 363–378

https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v7i3.5349

Article
A Framework for Co‐Design Processes and Visual Collaborative Methods:
An Action Research Through Design in Chile
Macarena Gaete Cruz *, Aksel Ersoy, Darinka Czischke, and Ellen van Bueren

Management in the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

* Corresponding author ([email protected])

Submitted: 29 January 2022 | Accepted: 28 June 2022 | Published: 29 September 2022

Abstract
With the urgency to adapt cities to social and ecological pressures, co‐design has become essential to legitimise trans‐
formations by involving citizens and other stakeholders in their design processes. Public spaces remain at the heart of
this transformation due to their accessibility for citizens and capacity to accommodate urban functions. However, urban
landscape design is a complex task for people who are not used to it. Visual collaborative methods (VCMs) are often
used to facilitate expression and ideation early in design, offering an arts‐based language in which actors can communi‐
cate. We developed a co‐design process framework to analyse how VCMs contribute to collaboration in urban processes
throughout the three commonly distinguished design phases: conceptual, embodiment, and detail. We participated in a
co‐design process in the Atacama Desert in Chile, adopting an Action Research through Design (ARtD) in planning, under‐
taking and reflecting in practice. We found that VCMs are useful to facilitate collaboration throughout the process in design
cycles. The variety of VCMs used were able to foster co‐design in a rather non‐participatory context and influenced the
design outcomes. The framework recognized co‐design trajectories such as the early fuzziness and the ascendent co‐design
trajectory throughout the process. The co‐design process framework aims for conceptual clarification and may be helpful
in planning and undertaking such processes in practice. We conclude that urban co‐design should be planned and analysed
as a long‐term process of interwoven collaborative trajectories.

Keywords
co‐design; co‐design process; public space; urban co‐design; visual methods

Issue
This article is part of the issue “Co‐Creation and the City: Arts‐Based Methods and Participatory Approaches in Urban
Planning” edited by Juliet Carpenter (University of Oxford) and Christina Horvath (University of Bath).

© 2022 by the author(s); licensee Cogitatio (Lisbon, Portugal). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribu‐
tion 4.0 International License (CC BY).

1. Introduction planning (Healey, 1992), the cross of the great divide

(Ostrom, 1996; Parks et al., 1981), and the emer‐
Urban design and planning practices have a long gence of new languages and landscapes of design
tradition of dealing with change and uncertainties (Sanders, 2000; Sanders & Stappers, 2008). They rep‐
(Healey, 1992; Jupp & Inch, 2012; Sanders & Stappers, resent a shift towards involving a more comprehensive
2008). Collaborative approaches have emerged as ways range of actors and incorporating formal and experi‐
to cope with such complexities while dealing with ential knowledge in dialogue and design (Sandercock
power inequities towards more resilient, legitimate, & Attili, 2010; Sanders, 2000). Scholars have given
context‐specific, and feasible outcomes (Enserink et al., special attention to new methods to initiate dialogue,
2003; Gaete Cruz et al., 2021; Palmås & von Busch, 2015; awaken imaginaries, and facilitate collective knowledge
Smaniotto Costa et al., 2020). Such approaches aim for co‐production (Carpenter et al., 2021; Ersoy, 2017;
democratic, deliberative, and participative approaches Mattelmäki et al., 2014; Sanders et al., 2010; Sanders &
following debates such as the communicative turn in Stappers, 2008).

Urban Planning, 2022, Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 363–378 363

 Co‐design is a term that is often used for participa‐ 2. Visual Collaborative Methods and Co‐Design
tion in design processes where collective creativity is fos‐
tered involving users as sources of knowledge (Sanders 2.1. The Use of VCMs in Co‐Design Processes
& Stappers, 2008). The term acknowledges the diversity
of stakeholders involved in design processes (Smaniotto Co‐design brings designers, citizens, and people not
Costa et al., 2020) while emphasising a need for active trained in design to collaborate in design processes
collaboration in urban design (Van de Ven et al., 2016). (Sanders & Stappers, 2008). Co‐design initially focused
Tools and methods have been used to represent urban on users as sources of experiential knowledge and
complexity for participants to visualise the diverse nat‐ has evolved towards new forms of diverse stakeholder
ural and human layers of urban spaces (Baibarac & involvement (Mattelmäki & Visser, 2011; Sanders &
Petrescu, 2017; Hooimeijer & Maring, 2018; Van de Ven Stappers, 2008). In doing so, actors intervene in design
et al., 2016). Yet public space governance is often con‐ processes in diverse ways, from sources of practical
tested and deals with multiple converging and con‐ expertise, speakers of their aims, and collaborators in
fronting aims and requirements (Van Melik & Van Der creativity, exploration, and learning (Mattelmäki et al.,
Krabben, 2016). This is the case in multiscale and multi‐ 2014; Mattelmäki & Visser, 2011). Such ways require
dimensional settings where co‐design unfolds in various integrating diverse (and sometimes contradicting) knowl‐
institutional frames or arenas (Gaete Cruz et al., in press; edge, values, aims, and skills. For the actors to effectively
Huybrechts et al., 2017). Moreover, in urban co‐design collaborate, they should feel comfortable expressing
processes, participants should feel comfortable express‐ points of view, be willing to develop shared understand‐
ing their points of view and being flexible to change their ings, and have some knowledge on the subject (Metze,
minds (Gaete Cruz et al., 2021). In collective decision‐ 2020). Urban actors often come from diverse sectors
making settings, participants should be available to delib‐ (public, private, academia, non‐profit, community), have
erate or negotiate when necessary (Castro, 2021). This different backgrounds (formal or informal expertise),
may not be the case when actors come from diverse sec‐ and pursue specific aims (strategic, transdisciplinary,
tors and backgrounds or are unacquainted with design socio‐cultural; Gaete Cruz et al., in press). Co‐design
practice (Enserink et al., 2003). But when some forms occurs in dynamic, multilayered, and multi‐sectorial
of collaboration are achieved in urban design processes, ways in transdisciplinary teams integrating formal and
outcomes are more likely to be more appropriate and informal expertise (Baibarac & Petrescu, 2019; Gaete
locally suitable (Ersoy & Yeoman, 2020; Smaniotto Costa Cruz et al., 2022).
et al., 2020). We understand urban co‐design as the collabora‐
While many participatory methods are said to facil‐ tive approach to urban design acts that involve diverse
itate collaboration, there are different interpretations strategic, transdisciplinary, and socio‐cultural actors aim‐
of the use of visual collaborative methods (VCMs). ing for more context‐specific, legitimate, and feasible
For example, some studies have focused on their use to outcomes (Gaete Cruz et al., in press). Yet, despite the
communicate and exchange design ideas (Rose, 2014), often recognised legitimate contributions of collabora‐
initiate dialogue, or communicate experiential knowl‐ tion, bringing actors together raises many practical chal‐
edge (Sanders, 2008; Sanders & Stappers, 2008). Some lenges (Switzer, 2018). They might not always under‐
argue that the visual language is conventionally used stand the urban spaces and interactions to analyse and
by urban professionals and can thus serve as an addi‐ design them, which may lead to misunderstandings, con‐
tional language in which non‐designer actors can com‐ flicts, mistrust, or even the end of an involvement. In this
municate and collaborate (Sanders, 2009). Many stud‐ sense, applied research studies may clarify co‐design
ies focus on the use of VCMs in the early stages of in practice.
design. However, more conceptual clarification is needed Urban design professionals conventionally use visual
to understand how such methods facilitate collaboration language to communicate their projects. Visual repre‐
throughout the design phases. The question remains of sentations can put information in front of others’ eyes
how VCMs can facilitate collaboration in the urban land‐ (Whyte et al., 2017) and are sometimes more effec‐
scape design process in practice. This study explores the tive than words (Tufte, 1997). Yet communicating with
potential of VCMs as modes of collaborative knowledge non‐experienced designers is not always straightforward,
inquiry, analysis, projection, and selection throughout and fostering collaboration involves a lot of challenges
the design processes. (Sanders, 2009). Collaborative processes often use visual
In the next section, we propose a framework to con‐ methods to facilitate knowledge production, brainstorm‐
ceptualise the use of VCMs in the co‐design process. ing, the development of shared understandings, and
Then we present the case we studied and explain the the engagement of the participants (Carpenter et al.,
methodological approach we adopted to act and reflect 2021; Enserink et al., 2003). Different forms of VCMs
on practice. The results section defines the VCMs used in are used in co‐design processes to foster communication
the co‐design process and maps them in the framework. and exchange ideas by offering an additional language in
We define the contributions of VCMs in co‐design pro‐ which actors can communicate (Mattelmäki et al., 2014;
cesses and clarify the complexity of such practice. Sanders, 2009). And while urban designers communicate

Urban Planning, 2022, Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 363–378 364

through plans, diagrams, and renders, they convention‐ 2.2. Expanding the Co‐Design Process
ally do so to communicate for construction or persuade
in a one‐way direction (Sanders, 2009). In a previous study, we developed a co‐design frame‐
The use of visual methods is often studied in prac‐ work offering a landscape in which the different design
tice because it is in their use that the main challenges steps could occur in diverse levels of collaboration (Gaete
and contributions can be observed. In recent years a Cruz et al., in press). The framework builds on reinter‐
wide variety of such methods have been studied (posters, pretations of the ladder of participation (Arnstein, 1969)
reports, videos, storyboards, card sets, animations, pic‐ and the design cycle (Jonas, 2007; Roozenburg & Eekels,
tures, diagrams, sketches, amongst others; Sleeswijk‐ 1995; Zwart & de Vries, 2016). We defined the levels
Visser, 2009). Many studies have attempted systematisa‐ of collaboration and the design actions of co‐design.
tion towards conceptual clarification, yet the approaches We distinguish four design actions that occur throughout
vary widely and sometimes follow different lines of argu‐ urban design processes: research, analysis, projection
ment or theoretical traditions. Some have highlighted and selection. A collaborative research approach might
the value of open‐ended dialogue approaches of par‐ allow for knowledge co‐production, allowing for better‐
ticipatory visual methods in community‐based research informed outcomes. The collaborative analysis and syn‐
(Switzer, 2018). Others recognise arts‐based methods thesis of information might result in shared understand‐
as knowledge co‐production devices for social justice ings and social learning. Accordingly, the shared projec‐
(Carpenter et al., 2021; Metze, 2020). Worth mentioning tion and ideation of solutions, or part of the solutions,
is the academic work by Elizabeth Sanders, who spent might improve the sense of participation. At the same
years developing an approach for the use of methods time, a collaborative evaluation, prioritisation and selec‐
in co‐design processes and proposed a map to classify tion of design solutions might most likely result in legit‐
design research tools concerning user participation and imising the outcomes. If these steps involve other actors,
research (Sanders, 2006; Sanders et al., 2010; Sanders then different collaborative levels can be observed as:
& Stappers, 2014). Although the conceptual approaches informative, consultive, participative, and long‐term col‐
are interesting, they often fail to capture the collabora‐ laborative (Gaete Cruz et al., in press).
tive dynamics in urban design processes. It has been said The design concept is commonly referred to as the
that the contributions of such visual methods need to be process and the end result (Zwart & de Vries, 2016).
clarified (Carpenter et al., 2021). Design has also been conceptualised as a timeline in
In this study, we understand VCMs as methods that which design solutions, through repetitive design cycles,
use visual language as a tool for collaboration in design evolve increasingly from one phase to another one.
practice. We recognise that such language is useful for Some have coined that three main design phases are
the inquiry and communication of information and pro‐ recognised: the conceptual, the embodiment and the
motes stakeholders’ engagement (Pocock et al., 2016). detail phases (Cross & Roozenburg, 1992; Roozenburg
While some study arts‐based methods to interpret per‐ & Eekels, 1995). In the conceptual phase, the problem
sonal expressions (Carpenter et al., 2021; Switzer, 2018), is defined, and conceptual solutions are ideated. In the
we aim to explore how they are boundary‐spanning embodiment phase, a preliminary design is selected
(Whyte et al., 2017) and prompt collaboration in design amongst possible spatial layouts, functional displays, and
(Switzer, 2018) to set a complementary language in material propositions for further development. The final
which everyone can actively intervene. VCMs can use design phase determines specific aspects and docu‐
a range of visual representations, from conventional ments the project to be built according to technical
urban design tools to analytical ones and even more requirements, regulations and evaluations. We extended
art‐based and ethnographic forms. Their value relies the co‐design framework into the three design phases as
not only on their capacity to ignite personal expres‐ shown in Figure 1.
sions but to do so with others in design acts. Visual We adhere to the process‐oriented approaches that
language is used to depict aspects of reality, commu‐ simultaneously conceptualise design as cyclical and lin‐
nicate and translate information, and prompt dialogue ear (Cross & Roozenburg, 1992; Roozenburg & Eekels,
(Metze, 2020), but most importantly, to foster ideation 1995). We incorporated the linear approach in the
and creation. In working with VCMs, it is content and co‐design framework by emphasising that the design
form that is important (Switzer, 2018), but also how col‐ steps occur in a cyclical iterative way towards the devel‐
laboration is achieved in its use (Gaete Cruz et al., in opment of solutions throughout the three design phases.
press). So, while some of the VCMs in this study are This allows us to map and analyse the use of VCMs and
relatively conventional, their open‐ended content cre‐ how they facilitate a diversity of design actions through‐
ation approach matters to co‐design. In this study, we out the process. Accordingly, actors may go back and
understand VCMs as those using visual language as a forth between the steps and repeat the whole cycle sev‐
tool for collaboration in the design steps of research, eral times throughout the process. We argue that such
analysis, ideation, and decision‐making throughout methods may facilitate collaborative research, analysis,
co‐design processes. projection, and decision‐making throughout the concep‐
tual, embodiment, and detailing design phases.

Urban Planning, 2022, Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 363–378 365

 Collaborave
COLLABORATIVE LEVELS

Parcipave

C O - D E S I G N P R O C E S S L A N D S C A P E
Consulve

Informave

Research Analysis Projecon Selecon Research Analysis Projecon Selecon Research Analysis Projecon Selecon
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PHASE EMBODIMENT DESIGN PHASE DETAILING DESIGN PHASE
(Design Cycle 1) (Design Cycle 2) (Design Cycle 3)

Figure 1. Framework for the urban co‐design process. Levels of collaboration on the Y‐axis and the design acts throughout
the design phases on the X‐axis.

3. Methodological Approach to the Co‐Design Process moned as the future end users, and some had played a
role in requesting such structures. We involved them early
3.1. Description of the Co‐Design Process From Practice in the process as relevant actors aiming to co‐design the
space to prepare the grounds for future co‐management
We conducted a case study of a public space co‐design and co‐operation. They were actively involved through‐
process while acting in practice. This occurred in the con‐ out the embodiment and the detailing phases providing
text of a public design consultancy commissioned by the expert technical knowledge and even leading strategic
Housing and Urbanism Ministry of Chile to Co‐Diseño interactions with relevant local sports actors.
Urbano Consultants. The ministry aimed to update The first author participated in the planning and
the Kaukari Urban Park project designed by Teodoro development of the design consultancy. The case study
Fernández Associate Architects in 2012 in the Atacama for the article was selected because we could plan the
Region. They acknowledged the need for updated mixed process and act in practice. This allowed us to evaluate
sports functions in the park. the use of VCMs. The Kaukari Urban Park co‐design pro‐
The Slope Sports Square was designed as an open pub‐ cess had also previously been studied by the authors,
lic space with skating elements and a climbing wall as and the timing of the consultancy matched this study.
shown in Figure 2. Various sports organisations were sum‐ It is important to note that the co‐design approach was

Figure 2. Work‐in‐progress visualisation of the Slope Sports Square. Source: Courtesy of Co‐Diseño Urbano Consultants.

Urban Planning, 2022, Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 363–378 366

suggested as a mode of practice amongst the involved The co‐design processes ran from November 2020
actors. This was a real‐life rooted practice of co‐design until April 2022. Given the global pandemic, the process
applied research in a rather top‐down setting, and was was mainly conducted in an online format. With such
thus not a completely autonomous research endeavor. challenging circumstances, the process benefited from
This article evaluates such processes of planning and digital tools in which visual language played an important
interacting in practice. role in facilitating collaboration and design.
The co‐design process planned to integrate a diver‐ This study’s first author was personally involved in
sity of strategic, design, and assessment professionals, practice with an ARtD approach. She managed the design
and the prospective users of the project. The leading team within the public design consultancy team. This
actors were the ministry in charge and the design team allowed her to plan the process’s co‐design moments
of which the lead author was in charge. The first author and undertake such endeavours with a collaborative
played the urban designer and project manager role fos‐ and flexible mindset. Due to her expertise as an urban
tering co‐design interactions. designer in broad innovative and multiactor urban devel‐
opment processes, she was able to focus mainly on how
3.2. Acting and Reflecting in Design Practice collaboration amongst the diverse actors contributed
to the design process and their resulting outcomes.
This study was planned, conducted, and reflected upon We acknowledge that the involvement of researchers in
a co‐design process undertaken from 2020 to 2022. practice may raise legitimacy issues, but such an applied
The lead author of this study was involved in the design approach deepens the conceptual reflections while oper‐
team and was able to plan and undertake the co‐design ating in practice (van Stijn & Lousberg, in press). To avoid
process. Such an approach allowed us to act and analyse personal or professional bias, the results were shared
at three operational levels: in planning the design pro‐ with certain involved actors for feedback and verification
cesses, in conducting the design processes to produce through interviews at the end of the process.
the design outcome, and finally, in reflecting upon such
endeavours. The steps taken in these levels are detailed 4. Results and Discussions
in Table 1. This article reflects mainly on the use of the
multiple VCMs that facilitated the co‐design process. This study explores the contribution of VCMs as modes
This study took an action research through design of collaborative knowledge inquiry, analysis, projection,
(ARtD) methodological approach to generate knowledge and decision‐making in design processes. First, we define
from practice by acting in an actual ongoing design pro‐ the methods we used and then map them regarding their
cess (van Stijn, in press), aiming to intervene in the collaboration level in design steps throughout the phases.
urban environment through problem and solution defi‐ The results showed that even though most VCMs were
nition (Buchanan, 1992). This approach combines action planned for the early phases, their use was maintained
research with research through design methods. Action throughout the whole process. The framework helps con‐
research aims for knowledge inquiry with active par‐ ceptualise the use of VCMs and visualise the co‐design
ticipation from stakeholders in open‐ended processes trajectories within such a process.
with flexible objectives (Baum et al., 2006; Bell et al.,
2004). Research through design supports the research 4.1. Visual Collaborative Methods Used in the Co‐Design
inquiry process where new design knowledge is gener‐ Process
ated through the action and reflection in design (Cross,
2001; Frankel & Racine, 2010; Jonas, 2007; Roggema, The variety of VCMs are explained in Table 2 and some
2016). We acknowledge these two approaches pursue are shown in Figure 3. They are described according to
different aims and have different disciplinary trajectories, the moment when they were used, the actors involved,
but a combined approach was appropriate to address the level of collaboration in design steps, and their
such collaborative design‐oriented research in practice. main contributions.

Table 1. ARtD steps were undertaken to plan, conduct, and reflect upon the co‐design process.
Operational Levels Approach
Planning AR approach to the collaboration of actors
RtD approach to the design of objectives
Conducting design AR approach to collaboration with actors
RtD approach to the outcomes and objectives
Reflecting AR approach to collaboration and the process
RtD approach to evaluate the design and outcomes

Urban Planning, 2022, Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 363–378 367

Table 2. VCMs used in the design process.
VCM Design Phase and Involved Actors Collaboration in Contribution to
Description Design Steps Collaboration and
Design
1 Interest and Conceptual phase. The interviewees Consultive research This VCM allowed to
power matrix The matrix was used as belonged to public of actors and identify and
of actors a visual tool for organisations, sports participative analysis consequently summon
dialogue and to sketch associations, local of their position in relevant sports
during the interviews NGOs, and the matrix. associations and
with key actors to sportspeople. The organisations operating
identify and classify a facilitator of the in the city.
wider variety of actors citizen participation
that could be relevant (socially‐oriented
to the design process expertise) within the
and the operation of design team leads
the square. this process.
2 Exercise Conceptual phase. Diverse Participative These booklets allowed
booklets for Pre‐designed booklets sportspeople filled in research of sports for a shared
experience (experience journals) the booklets (skate, experiences. understanding of the
registration for participants to fill climb, circus art, Members of the sports practices’
in during their spare parkour, running, design team then feelings, experiences,
time while enjoying walkers, cycling, systematised and functional
their sports in the park. football, basketball, the booklets. dynamics amongst the
The booklet layout Zumba dance, involved actors. These
addressed some boxing, and crossfit). notions were then
specific aspects of the incorporated into the
sports experiences, public space designed.
ideas and aims of the
sportspeople for
the square.
3 Sports Conceptual phase. The actors Informative and The meeting aimed and
experience This interactive board summoned to the consultive analysis contributed to finding
and (Miro online platform) meeting were the towards the converging issues
conditions was used in the sportspeople, the participative amongst the sports,
matrix. meeting where the design team, and the systematisation of developing shared
(Booklet’s analysis and results of public servants of the results. understandings about
workshop) the Exercise booklets the ministry in the sports activities,
were presented, charge. and empowering the
discussed and further collective use of the
systematised. The future space.
interactive board was
filled in during the
meeting integrating
the discussed issues. In
a focus group setting,
the conversation
tackled the sport’s
needs, everyday needs,
and the conditions of
an inclusive and public
urban space.

Urban Planning, 2022, Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 363–378 368

Table 2. (Cont.) VCMs used in the design process.
VCM Design Phase and Involved Actors Collaboration in Contribution to
Description Design Steps Collaboration and
Design
4 Online Conceptual phase The workshop was Since the This method allowed
post‐its board during the Co‐design led by the urban requirements of the the confirmation of the
in the Workshop with the design team and sports had been collected information
Co‐design skaters, climbers, and summoned the discussed and the development
workshop circus art performers. skaters, climbers and beforehand, the of a shared
The workshop was circus art collected understanding of each
initiated by sharing the performers, and the information was sport’s collective needs
requirements of the public servants of informed and specific
sports gathered during the ministry. and consulted. requirements. There
the process. This was were no further
done on a digital board discussions in
(Miro platform). this respect.
5 Live sketching Conceptual phase in The workshop was This method aimed This method helped set
in the park the Co‐design led by the urban to communicate and a collective
and site Workshop. design team and explain the urban understanding of the
architectural The workshop summoned the park design criteria project’s main design
plans followed with the live skaters, climbers and and the site’s spatial criteria and limitations.
(Co‐design digital sketching of the circus art and budget This allowed the
workshop) lead author on a digital performers, and the limitations levelling of
plan of the park and public servants of (informative expectations of the
site (Miro platform). the ministry. analysis). participants. This was
useful for the next step
of the co‐design
process, in which the
groups had to develop
a spatial layout for
the square.
6 Live collective Conceptual phase in The workshop was This method allowed This method allowed a
sketching of the Co‐design led by the urban a participative collective layout
spatial Workshop with the design team and analysis and building forcing
layouts skaters, climbers and summoned the projection of spatial participants to think
(Co‐design circus art performers. skaters, climbers and layout sketches. spatially and
workshop) The workshop circus art encouraging them to
followed with the performers, and the comprehend the
collective sketching of public servants of implications of a shared
possible layouts of the the ministry. public space. In this
square using arrows exercise, new spatial
and lines in smaller ideas were raised for
mixed groups on a the project.
digital plan of the site
(Miro platform).
7 Diagrams, Conceptual phase, These revision In these meetings, Even though these
plans, and embodiment phase, meetings were held visual visual tools are rather
renders and detailing phase. with the design team representations conventional in this
(Revision Multiple diagrams, at the ministry’s were used to inform design field, we
meetings) plans, and renders request. The the analysis of the highlight the
were used throughout ministry had the design team, consult collaborative approach
the process to final decision in about the projection, with which they were
communicate the approving and decide used to communicate
project’s development the project. collaboratively on the analysis and
in formal the design for its ideation, allowing for
revision meetings. further collective
development. decision‐making.

Urban Planning, 2022, Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 363–378 369

Table 2. (Cont.) VCMs used in the design process.
VCM Design Phase and Involved Actors Collaboration in Contribution to
Description Design Steps Collaboration and
Design
8 Sketching in Conceptual phase, The design team and Pictures and videos Even though these
social media embodiment phase, the sportspeople were used to inform visual tools were not
visuals * and detailing phase. participated in this and analyse the envisioned in the
(WhatsApp The photography and reiterative exchange sports practice, planning process, they
exchange). videos from social of sketched visuals. spaces and contributed to sharing
media (Instagram, construction details. knowledge in a twofold
YouTube) were used direction between the
throughout the design team and the
process to share most active
knowledge and sportspeople.
understanding
regarding skating and
climbing sports.
9 Sketching in Conceptual phase, The design team and Sections and details The early exchange of
details and embodiment phase, the sportspeople were used to ideate architectural sections
sections * and detailing phase. exchanged sketched and select better and building details
The sections and sections and details. solutions for the amongst the design
details were used to specific sports team and the most
share technical building solutions in active sportspeople
knowledge and verify a participative way. allowed the
that the project met development of
the skate and construction solutions
climbing‐specific to implement the
requirements. sports structures and
elements such as the
climbing wall, the
ramps, protections, and
sliding elements.
10 Work‐in‐ Embodiment phase. The ministry in The WIP 3D models The public exposure of
progress Some work‐in‐progress charge, various and renders were draft images generated
renders in (WIP) renders were skaters and citizens, posted online to much public confusion.
social media posted on the Kaukari especially some inform the ongoing The images were not
* Urban Park’s social sportspeople who design project. finished and had
media, which raised had dropped the technical detail
many controversial co‐design process. mistakes that gave a
public opinions. confusing message to
the skating community.
They were WIP drafts
far from being ready
to publish.
11 Plans and Detailing phase. Involved parties The design team The main contribution
renders * The project plans and were the design presented the of this unplanned
images were team, the ministry in project to skaters. exchange was the
presented to skate charge, and skating The ministry allowed acknowledgement that
organisations that organizations who the skaters to more beginners’ skating
demanded had dropped the suggest changes in spaces could enhance
participation in the co‐design the project. the training vocation of
process (even though process earlier. such a public square.
they had voluntarily Since the ministry was
dropped off earlier). in charge of approving
the project, the
suggestions had to be
taken into account.

Urban Planning, 2022, Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 363–378 370

Table 2. (Cont.) VCMs used in the design process.
VCM Design Phase and Involved Actors Collaboration in Contribution to
Description Design Steps Collaboration and
Design
12 Photographs Detailing phase. The The skate The visual report This non foreseen
in a report * skate organisations organisations aimed to inform and report helped clarify
developed a report in developed a report consult about some the skate organisations’
which, through and submitted it to project changes. It requests and allowed
photography and the ministry. The was a bottom‐up the design team to
written notes, they design team way of proposing integrate the beginners’
expressed their received the report alternative training space. Even
suggestions for new and integrated the structures for the though it did not allow
beginners’ structures suggested beginner inclusion of a for true collaboration
in the square. They elements. beginners’ area in toward design, the
requested lower the sports square. report format did add
skating structures such to the specificity of the
as ramps and requests with the use
sliding rails. of visual images
and notes.
13 Sketches in a Detailing phase. The The skate The meeting aimed The participants were
printed design team insisted organisations, the to consult and verify allowed to sketch the
architectural on verifying the ministry, and the how the project had printed plan and
layout * modified design design team. incorporated the develop changes to the
proposal beginners’ area. project without
(implementating the Nevertheless, the dialogue between the
beginners’ area) with meeting resulted in design team and the
the local skate a participative skaters. This resulted in
organisations. This was projection and somehow a prejudice
just accomplished modification of the to the final project. The
after months. The overall layout of the lack of dialogue may
architectural layout square without an have resulted in missed
printed plan was used active participation opportunities and
to explain the process, of the design team. overall sense of
but the ministry was miscommunication.
also willing to allow
new changes to the
whole project even
though the
consultancy was about
to finish.
14 Sketching in Towards the end of the The ministry Such interactions Such an approach is
sections and process, in the professionals in started with a common when one
details * detailing phase, the charge of the participative analysis actor (ministry) has the
technical revisors technical approval of but resulted in control over the
changed, so new the project and the consultive projection process. In this case,
professionals arrived design team. and informative some parties within the
and requested a series decision‐making. ministry felt
of detailing and layout uncomfortable with the
changes that had to be top‐down attitudes of
addressed by the others at the end of the
design team. process.
Note: Methods with * were not part of the initial plan.

Urban Planning, 2022, Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 363–378 371

Figure 3. Some VCMs used: Exercise booklets (2), boards of sports requirements (4), live sketching plans (5), spatial layout
exercises (6), and sketched visuals (8). Source: Courtesy of Co‐Diseño Urbano Consultants.

VCMs were combined with either verbal or written remotely during the previous year. Also, digital meet‐
forms of communication to explain and use them. This ings allowed more people to be present and available,
was the case in the report (12), in which the visual and a couple of actors noted this during the process.
requests were further explained in the text. Also, dur‐ Additionally, a couple of in person meetings were held
ing the live sketching (6), the design strategies and site without a successful attendance rate. Also, occasionally,
limitations were explained verbally to the participants. hard‐copy booklets and plans were used as non‐digital
Accordingly, a variety of verbal and written forms com‐ devices for people to fill in or sketch. In this sense, the
plemented the multiple VCMs. VCMs studied are both digital and hard copy.
It is worth noting that most VCMs were digital as
meetings and interactions were held online due to the 4.2. Mapping the VCMs in the Urban Co‐Design Process
pandemic. Despite this, participants seem to have felt Framework
comfortable communicating, learning and using digital
tools. This probably worked out because most of them The VCMs used in the process were mapped in the
are younger than 40 years old and had already worked urban co‐design framework, as shown in Figure 4. Within

Urban Planning, 2022, Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 363–378 372

 Collaborave

9 9 13
COLLABORATIVE LEVELS

2 1 3 6 8 8 9
Parcipave 7 7 7

12
11
Consulve

4 10 10 14
Informave 5

Research Analysis Projecon Selecon Research Analysis Projecon Selecon Research Analysis Projecon Selecon

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PHASE EMBODIMENT DESIGN PHASE DETAILING DESIGN PHASE

(Design Cycle 1) (Design Cycle 2) (Design Cycle 3)

Figure 4. Mapping the use of VCMs in the co‐design process framework. Collaborative levels on the Y‐axis and the design
cycle and phases on the X‐axis.

the co‐design landscape, VCMs were placed according could then be considered, prioritised, and integrated into
to the level of collaboration achieved by the involved the designed outcomes. Most of the VCMs planned for
actors in the design actions. In such a way, methods the conceptual phase allowed shared pre‐design and
aiming for knowledge inquiry were classified as “con‐ exploratory solutions (Sanders, 2014), as was explicitly
sulting research,” methods to present design solutions requested in the design consultancy. Yet, new collabora‐
were mapped as “informative projection,” and meth‐ tive and design needs emerged in the following phases,
ods aiming to generate new solutions in collaboration so new VCMs were incorporated.
through time were mapped as “participative projection A selected group of sportspeople were involved in
and decision‐making.” the early shared understandings to define the require‐
Some VCMs were placed in one position, while oth‐ ments of the sports and analyse the opportunities and
ers in more than one. The numbers in Figure 4 refer to limitations of the site. However, due to the high speci‐
the methods described in Table 2. For example, the actor ficity of the designs and the lack of national sports regu‐
matrix (1) was used as a consulting device during the lations for climbing and skate structures, a more perma‐
interviews and a participative analytical tool in consec‐ nent technical collaboration was required and sustained
utive meetings. In other cases, more than one VCM was in the following design phases. Other visual methods
used in a meeting. This is the case of the co‐design work‐ were used in a twofold direction for knowledge exchange,
shop during the conceptual phase, which consisted of brokerage and design. This was the case in which conven‐
three methods (4, 5, 6). The first (4) consisted of a presen‐ tional technical visuals that communicated the project
tation of the sports requirements collected and compiled were then used as tools for collaboration. Throughout
using digital diagrams. Then the context‐specific oppor‐ the process, we used conventional visual tools that were
tunities and limitations of the site and the projects were at hand. This was possible because one of the skaters
presented by the urban designer through live online was trained and had professional experience in technical
sketches of architectural plans of the site and surround‐ drafting, supporting collaboration even in detailing tech‐
ings (5). Finally, the collaborative development of spa‐ nical specifications.
tial layouts for the square with digital sketches and sym‐ The shared understandings and sports requirements
bols on a site plan (6). The workshop lasted two and a were integrated in the spatial layouts and preliminary
half hours, ranged from informative to participative lev‐ construction solutions during the embodiment phase.
els, and operated in three design steps: research, analy‐ As illustrated in Figure 3, the VCMs in this phase reflect
sis, and projection. This explains that the use of VCMs the co‐design interactions within the transdisciplinary
sometimes concentrate at one point, while others draw design arena (Gaete Cruz et al., in press). Such meth‐
a trajectory within the co‐design landscape. ods allowed collaboration in the revision meetings (7)
The fuzziness in the conceptual phase has been said and sketching in images, videos, plans, and details
to foster shared understandings and the empowerment (8, 9) exchanged weekly using WhatsApp, Instagram, or
of the participants (Sanders, 2005; Sanders & Stappers, Zoom meetings.
2008). The initial plan even considered some arts‐based During the detailing phase, the most specialised deci‐
VCMs in the early phase to elicit experiences and foster sions are made, and this is the last collaborative phase of
knowledge‐sharing of the participants. Those methods the process. Some of the VCMs mapped in the previous
aimed for participants to communicate, feel comfortable, phase are maintained. Nevertheless, we observe some
and provide personal knowledge, aims, and values that rather unusual collaborative trajectories due to changes

Urban Planning, 2022, Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 363–378 373

in the involved actors. Sports organisations who com‐ for collaborative endeavours but may also blur profes‐
plained were included towards the end. And some pro‐ sional limits. This may have been the case of the sport‐
fessionals in charge of the technical approvals left the people participating actively in the development of the
process or were changed towards the end. project. They were not formally part of the team or were
After the WIP renders were posted in social media, economically retributed. Scholars have previously high‐
some sports organisations had to be involved in the lighted such possible social justice issues in participatory
process. This was done time‐barred and affected the endevours (Ersoy, 2017).
overall sense of collaboration. The modifications they An interesting contribution of VCMs to the process
demanded had been already decided collaboratively in is how they influence further steps of the process or
the conceptual phase. At that point most of them had the use of other methods. This is the case of the actor
been involved in the process but decided to abandon it matrix (1) that allowed the identification of actors with
at some point. After several months, a new meeting was whom we continued to collaborate. Also, the ideation
held in person (13), and wrong expectations were given steps (6, 7, 8, 9) used conventional visual tools in uncon‐
about possible project changes. The ministry opened ventional ways to foster collaboration. VCMs used in the
up the project for modifications (11, 12), disregarding analysis and ideation steps (1, 3, 4, 5, 8) contributed to
the urging of the design team for closure. The changes shared understandings and design outcomes.
affected the layout and project details. This occurred at The use of VCMs also influenced the design out‐
the end of the detailing phase raising budget and tim‐ comes. The booklets (3) made explicit that gathering and
ing issues that the design team absorbed alone. This warm‐up spaces needed in the square to complement
demonstrates how co‐design approaches may be dis‐ the sports structures and that natural sunset shadows
rupted when actors make use of the power they have, could be tapped through the position of the climbing
damaging collaboration. wall against the sun. Their discussion allowed for shared
Some public servants in charge of the technical understandings of the sportspeople’s values, motiva‐
approvals within the leading public organisms left the tions, and practices, which generated empathy and a
process for personal reasons. This is depicted in the col‐ sense of community. There was an additional agreement
laborative descent of number 14 in Figure 4. Processes (5, 6) on the sports’ formative and performative charac‐
deal with human beings, so interactions are simulta‐ ter, considering the park’s scenic and central setting, so
neously personal and technical. Whenever someone is viewports, grandstands, staircases, and gathering spaces
missing or new actors are integrated, problems may arise were incorporated into the design.
due to lack of awareness or willingness to collaborate. Finally, in a non‐participatory context like Chile, the
Moreover, professional boundaries often blur if partici‐ VCMs fostered co‐design in a rather top‐down urban
pants are connected outside the spheres of the co‐design development setting led by the public sector. The pan‐
arenas. This may have been the case when subjective demic might have benefitted the processes in two ways:
technical requirements were demanded as norms due to allowing for multiple images to be sketched and inter‐
the lack of national skatepark regulations. The descend‐ changed digitally and making it possible for team mem‐
ing line depicted in the detailing phase contrasts with the bers to collaborate while dispersed worldwide. Anyhow,
overall ascending lines observed in the previous phases. striving for co‐design in a context where participation is
It shows one of the main risks in pursuing co‐design since not the standard always raises practical challenges.
there are no power‐free institutional settings.
We concluded that VCMs facilitated all four design 4.4. The Contributions of the Urban Co‐Design
acts at different collaborative levels in each phase. Some Framework in This Study
focused on the consultation of strategic actors such as cit‐
izens or public organisations, and others facilitated par‐ The use of the framework as an analytical tool allowed
ticipative approaches to analysis and projection with the us to conceptualize a co‐design process. We observe that
public sector and some sportspeople. VCMs allowed the the starting point in the lower‐left area in Figure 4 is full
different parties’ information, consultation, participa‐ of opportunities. We consider informative research as a
tion, and collaboration. Yet, according to the framework, building block for further collaboration (Gaete Cruz et al.,
the collaborative level was achieved because participa‐ in press). From this point up, a co‐design process can be
tion was fostered consistently throughout the process. mapped and analysed. The use of the framework allowed
us to identify co‐design trajectories and shifting arenas.
4.3. The Contributions of VCMs in Urban Co‐Design Three main co‐design trajectories were recognised
Processes from this study: the early fuzziness, the collaborative
trajectory, and the final fuzziness. The early fuzziness
One of the main contributions of using VCMs in urban is where arts‐based tools, and VCMs contributed expe‐
co‐design processes is that they can be diverse and flex‐ riential knowledge and values to the process. Previous
ible enough to be used throughout the design process. studies have highlighted the fuzzy front end as the most
There original plan evolved, so flexibility had to be kept fruitful co‐design moment (Sanders, 2005). In the con‐
throughout the process. Such flexibility is a prerequisite ceptual phase all strategic, transdisciplinary, design, and

Urban Planning, 2022, Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 363–378 374

socio‐cultural arenas interacted. Then, the transdisci‐ laboration and shared decision‐making throughout the
plinary design arena ascended and achieved a collabora‐ design phases may improve the suitability of the projects
tive trajectory with sustained transdisciplinary co‐design (Gaete Cruz et al., 2021).
moments in the embodiment phase. Finally, we recog‐ This study from practice showed that co‐design,
nise a fuzziness towards the back‐end that may be con‐ while often understood as an idealist endeavour, has
sidered rather unconventional and certainly not desired. genuine and concrete benefits and challenges. One of
In this case, it happened due to the change in the profes‐ the main difficulties experienced in the study was main‐
sionals and sportspeople. This breakdown towards the taining the awareness and willingness of the actors to
end had a significant rise in the costs and duration of the maintain a collaborative approach. We conclude that
process. This highlights the importance of maintaining awareness and willingness to collaborate are needed for
communication, awareness, and willingness to collabo‐ the successful use of VCMs, and to achieve the aims
rate throughout the process. of co‐design (legitimacy, context specificity, and feasibil‐
Some actors were recognised to have crossed the ity; Gaete Cruz et al., in press). The collaborative aim
boundaries of design arenas (Gaete Cruz et al., in press). of the overall process should be known by all parties
We could say that some sportspeople transitioned from to manage expectations and deal with power issues.
the sociocultural towards the transdisciplinary design Such awareness and willingness will condition the avail‐
arena to sort more locally‐suitable building solutions. ability to get involved, listen to others, and ultimately
One of the main facilitators of the collaboration achieved co‐design. On the other hand, while some might think
with one of the skaters was that he was a technical drafts‐ that co‐design questions the contribution of urban land‐
man. So he knew how to understand, proofread and scape designers, in such diffuse collaborative settings, it
produce a technical design tool in the way the design may emphasise their leadership and facilitators role high‐
team did. Using such visuals was easy and became a lighting the value of their problem‐solving and solution‐
permanent communication language. Maintaining this generation expertise (Cross, 2018b). The previous, only
long‐lasting relationship throughout the process encour‐ if achieved with high doses of empathy.
aged the skater to pursue strategic aims. His started We also conclude that co‐design is forcefully a
to collaborate with the Ministry in charge, the National flexible process. Flexibility is needed in planning such
Sports Institute, and some other relevant actors in processes, undertaking them, and evaluating them.
the field pursuing the implementation and early acti‐ However, such flexibility in co‐design processes has draw‐
vation of the space. Somehow this depicts how an backs: Co‐design is less linear, more time‐consuming,
actor may transition from the sociocultural towards the and more expensive than conventional processes.
transdisciplinary design arena and end up acting in the It involves more people, activities, and innovative meth‐
strategic one. ods, and consequently, its management is difficult but
essential. Despite the above, great democratic, inclusive,
5. Conclusions and just benefits can be achieved when co‐design pro‐
cesses embrace their challenges and pitfalls. In doing so,
This study developed a framework for co‐design pro‐ more context‐specific projects can be achieved, more
cesses to conceptualise and analyse design in collab‐ legitimate and empowering spaces can be created, and
oration. The framework follows a previous study and ultimately, more feasible projects can be implemented.
extends it into the three main design phases. We tested In this ARtD case study, we had the unique oppor‐
the framework by analysing a case in which the first tunity to plan, act, and reflect throughout a co‐design
author was involved in practice. Although a linear process. Our process‐oriented approach allowed us to
sequential framework, it clarifies the diverse collabora‐ analyse what happened between the planned activities
tive interactions that occur in the cycles of problem‐ and experience how VCMs were used daily to exchange
solving and solution‐generation (Cross, 2018a). It depicts views, express points of view and solutions, and make
the variety of design aims pursued using VCMs and con‐ design decisions. Although the process outlined is an
tributes to measuring co‐design (Szebeko & Tan, 2010). analytical reduction of reality, it illustrates the diversity
The study suggests that VCMs may contribute to of co‐design acts and allows for generalisation and fur‐
co‐design throughout the whole process. During the ther discussion. Despite being an analytical tool, the
conceptual phase they mainly contribute to knowl‐ co‐design process framework captures the diversity of
edge inquiry and collective brainstorming toward shared trajectories within co‐design practice.
understandings. In the embodiment phase, they facili‐ More applied research studies are needed to fully
tate the analysis and evaluation of alternative solutions. understand how VCMs contribute to co‐design pro‐
In the detail phase, they contribute to integrating tech‐ cesses. For instance, the use of digital and non‐digital
nical knowledge of experienced actors (Sanders, 2009). VCMs could be studied. On the other hand, the co‐design
The analysis of planned and non‐planned methods goes process framework we developed can be used to study
one step further in conceptualising the complexities of other non‐visual methods, the evolution of collaborative
co‐design processes, and the need for flexibility (Gaete images, or the use of softwares in co‐design practice.
Cruz et al., 2021). This study suggests that fostering col‐ It may also contribute to analyse how knowledge and

Urban Planning, 2022, Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 363–378 375

values are integrated into co‐design processes. We argue Cross, N. (2018a). Developing design as a discipline. Jour‐
the framework may be useful to plan co‐design pro‐ nal of Engineering Design, 29(12), 691–708. https://
cesses in practice. doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2018.1537481
Co‐design may contribute to better informing the Cross, N. (2018b). Expertise in professional design. In K. A.
projects, legitimising the processes, and improving the Ericsson, R. R. Hoffman, A. Kozbelt, & A. M. Williams
appropriateness of the designed spaces (Gaete Cruz (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and
et al., in press). Further research may focus on how expert performance (2nd ed., pp. 372–388). Cam‐
co‐design may condition the implementation and opera‐ bridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
tion phases fostering collaboration in the operation, the 9781316480748
activation, and the maintenance of future public spaces. Cross, N., & Roozenburg, N. (1992). Modelling the design
process in engineering and in architecture. Journal of
Acknowledgments Engineering Design, 3(4), 325–337. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09544829208914765
This study was funded by the National Agency for Enserink, B., Monnikhof, R. A. H., & Enserink, B. (2003).
Research and Development (ANID) Chile 2018. We thank Information management for public participation in
Nicole Pumarino (†) for her collaborative wisdom. co‐design processes: Evaluation of a Dutch exam‐
ple. Journal of Environmental Planning and Man‐
Conflict of Interests agement, 46(3), 315–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0964056032000096910
The authors declare no conflict of interests. Ersoy, A. (Ed.). (2017). The impact of co‐production.
From community engagement to social justice. Policy
References Press.
Ersoy, A., & Yeoman, R. (2020). Reconfiguration of pub‐
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. lic space via nature‐based solutions. In J. Riegler &
Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), J. Bylund (Eds.), Unfolding dilemmas of urban pub‐
216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977 lic spaces. Recommendations by JPI Urban Europe’s
225 AGORA (pp. 25–29). Urban Europe.
Baibarac, C., & Petrescu, D. (2017). Open‐source Frankel, L., & Racine, M. (2010, July 7–9). The com‐
resilience: A connected commons‐based proposition plex field of research: For design, through design,
for urban transformation. Procedia Engineering, and about design [Paper presentation]. Design and
198(September 2016), 227–239. https://doi.org/ Complexity: DRS International Conference, Montreal,
10.1016/.jproeng.2017.07.157 Canada.
Baibarac, C., & Petrescu, D. (2019). Co‐design and urban Gaete Cruz, M., Ersoy, A., Czischke, D., & van Bueren,
resilience: Visioning tools for commoning resilience E. (2021). How co‐design of public space con‐
practices. CoDesign, 15(2), 91–109. https://doi.org/ tributes to strengthening resilience: Lessons from
10.1080/15710882.2017.1399145 two Chilean cases. In E. Peker & A. Ataov (Eds.), Gov‐
Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. (2006). Par‐ ernance of climate responsive cities (pp. 105–125).
ticipatory action research. Journal of Epidemiology Springer.
and Community Health, 60(10), 854–857. https://doi. Gaete Cruz, M., Ersoy, A., Czischke, D., & van Bueren, E.
org/10.1136/jech.2004.028662 (2022). Urban landscape co‐design as a knowledge
Bell, J., Cheney, G., Hoots, C., Kohrman, E., Schubert, J., co‐production process: Trans‐disciplinary trajectories
Stidham, L., & Traynor, S. (2004). Comparative simi‐ of two urban parks. Unpublished manuscript.
larities and differences between action research, par‐ Gaete Cruz, M., Ersoy, A., Czischke, D., & van Bueren, E.
ticipative research, and participatory action research (in press). Towards a framework for urban landscape
(Critical Inquiry Group 2). Antioch University Seattle. co‐design: Linking the participation ladder and the
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. design cycle. The CoDesign Journal.
Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. Healey, P. (1992). Planning through debate: The com‐
Carpenter, J., Horvath, C., & Spencer, B. (2021). municative turn in planning theory. Town Planning
Co‐creation as an agonistic practice in the favela of Review, 63(2), 143–162.
Santa Marta, Rio de Janeiro. Urban Studies, 58(9), Hooimeijer, F. L., & Maring, L. (2018). The significance
1906–1923. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098020 of the subsurface in urban renewal. Journal of
927964 Urbanism, 11(3), 303–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Castro, D. (2021). Argumentation and persistent dis‐ 17549175.2017.1422532
agreement. Informal Logic, 41(2), 245–280. https:// Huybrechts, L., Benesch, H., & Geib, J. (2017). Institu‐
doi.org/10.22329/IL.V41I2.5580 tioning: Participatory design, co‐design and the pub‐
Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design dis‐ lic realm. CoDesign, 13(3), 148–159. https://doi.org/
cipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 10.1080/15710882.2017.1355006
49–55. Jonas, W. (2007). Research through DESIGN through

Urban Planning, 2022, Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 363–378 376

 research. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1362–1380. https:// org/10.1007/978‐1‐4471‐0779‐8_1
doi.org/10.1108/03684920710827355 Sanders, E. (2005). Information, inspiration and
Jupp, E., & Inch, A. (2012). Introduction: Planning as co‐creation. In The 6th International Conference
a profession in uncertain times. Town Planning of the European Academy of Design (pp. 1–14).
Review, 83(5), 505–512. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr. University of the Arts, Bremen.
2012.31 Sanders, E. (2006). Design research in 2006. Design
Mattelmäki, T., Vaajakallio, K., & Kosinen, I. (2014). What Research Quarterly, 1(September), 1–25.
happened to empathic design? Design Issues, 30(1), Sanders, E. (2008). An evolving map of design practice
67–77. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00249 and design research. Interactions, 15(6), 13–17.
Mattelmäki, T., & Visser, F. S. (2011). Lost in Co‐X: Inter‐ Sanders, E. (2009). Exploring co‐creation on a large scale.
pretations of co‐design and co‐creation. In N. F. M. Designing for new healthcare environments. In P. J.
Roozenberg, L. L. Chen, & P. J. Stappers (Eds.), Diver‐ Stappers (Ed.), Designing for, with and from user
sity and unity: Proceedings of the IASDR 2011—The experience (pp. 10–26). ID StudioLab Press. https://
4th World Conference on Design Research. IASDR. www.researchgate.net/publication/275965775_
Metze, T. (2020). Visualization in environmental policy Exploring_co‐creation_on_a_large_scale_
and planning: A systematic review and research Designing_for_new_healthcare_environments
agenda. Journal of Environmental Policy and Plan‐ Sanders, E. (2014). Perspectives on participation in
ning, 22(5), 745–760. https://doi.org/10.1080/ design. In C. Mareis, M. Held, & G. Joost (Eds.),
1523908X.2020.1798751 Wer gestaltet die Gestaltung? Praxis, Theorie und
Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Copro‐ Geschichte des partizipatorischen Designs [Who cre‐
duction, synergy, and development. World Devel‐ ates the design? Practice, theory and history of par‐
opment, 24(6), 1073–1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/ ticipatory design] (pp. 61–74). transcript. https://doi.
0305‐750X(96)00023‐X org/10.14361/transcript.9783839420386.65
Palmås, K., & von Busch, O. (2015). Quasi‐quisling: Sanders, E., Brandt, E., & Binder, T. (2010). A framework
Co‐design and the assembly of collaborateurs. CoDe‐ for organizing the tools and techniques of participa‐
sign, 11(3/4), 236–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/ tory design. In T. Robertson, K. Bødker, T. Brattetig, &
15710882.2015.1081247 D. Loi (Eds.), PDC2010: Proceedings of the 11th Bien‐
Parks, R. B., Baker, P. C., Kiser, L., Oakerson, R., nial Participatory Design Conference (pp. 195–198).
Ostrom, E., Ostrom, V., Percy, S. L., Vandivort, M. B., Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.
Whitaker, G. P., & Wilson, R. (1981). Consumers as org/10.1145/1900441.1900476
coproducers of public services: Some economic and Sanders, E., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co‐creation and
institutional considerations. Policy Studies Journal, the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18.
9(7), 1001–1011. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541‐ https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
0072.1981.tb01208.x Sanders, E., & Stappers, P. J. (2014). Probes, toolkits and
Pocock, M. J. O., Evans, D. M., Fontaine, C., Harvey, M., prototypes: Three approaches to making in codesign‐
Julliard, R., McLaughlin, Ó., Silvertown, J., Tamaddoni‐ ing. CoDesign, 10(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Nezhad, A., White, P. C. L., & Bohan, D. A. (2016). The 15710882.2014.888183
visualisation of ecological networks, and their use as Sleeswijk‐Visser, F. (2009). Bringing the everyday life of
a tool for engagement, advocacy and management. people into design [Doctoral dissertation, TU Delft].
Advances in Ecological Research, 54, 41‐85. https:// https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/
doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2015.10.006 uuid%3A3360bfaa‐dc94‐496b‐b6f0‐6c87b333246c
Roggema, R. (2016). Research by design: Proposition for Smaniotto Costa, C., Mačiulienė, M., Menezes, M., &
a methodological approach. Urban Science, 1(1), 2. Goličnik Marušić, B. (Eds.). (2020). Co‐creation of
https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci1010002 public open spaces. Practice—reflection—learning.
Roozenburg, N. F. M., & Eekels, J. (1995). Product design: Edições Universitárias Lusófonas. https://doi.org/
Fundamentals and methods. John Wiley & Sons. 10.24140/2020‐sct‐vol.4
Rose, G. (2014). On the relation between “visual research Switzer, S. (2018). What’s in an image?: Towards a crit‐
methods” and contemporary visual culture. Sociolog‐ ical and interdisciplinary reading of participatory
ical Review, 62(1), 24–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/ visual methods. In M. Capous‐Desyllas & K. Morgaine
1467‐954X.12109 (Eds.), Creating social change through creativity: Anti‐
Sandercock, L., & Attili, G. (2010). Digital ethnography oppressive arts‐based research methodologies (pp.
as planning praxis: An experiment with film as social 189–207). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐
research, community engagement and policy dia‐ 319‐52129‐9_11
logue. Planning Theory and Practice, 11(1), 23–45. Szebeko, D., & Tan, L. (2010). Co‐designing for society.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350903538012 Australasian Medical Journal, 3(9), 580–590. https://
Sanders, E. (2000). Generative tools for codesigning. In doi.org/10.4066/AMJ.2010.378
S. A. R. Scrivener, L. J. Ball, & A. Woodcock (Eds.), Tufte, E. R. (1997). Visual explanations. Images and
Collaborative design (pp. 3‐12). Springer. https://doi. quantities, evidence and narrative. Graphics Press.

Urban Planning, 2022, Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 363–378 377

 https://doi.org/10.1213/00000539‐199706000‐ methods. Taylor & Francis.
00059 van Stijn, A., & Lousberg, L. H. M. J. (in press). Approach‐
Van de Ven, F. H. M., Snep, R. P. H., Koole, S., Brolsma, R., ing research through design in the field of archi‐
Van der Brugge, R., Spijker, J., & Vergroesen, T. (2016). tecture and the built environment: Relating to the
Adaptation planning support toolbox: Measurable history, key theories and discourse. In L. H. M. J.
performance information based tools for co‐creation Lousberg, P. Chan, & J. Heintz (Eds.), Interventionist
of resilient, ecosystem‐based urban plans with urban research methods. Taylor & Francis.
designers, decision‐makers and stakeholders. Envi‐ Whyte, J., Tryggestad, K., & Comi, A. (2017). Visu‐
ronmental Science and Policy, 66, 427–436. https:// alizing practices in project‐based design: Tracing
doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.010 connections through cascades of visual represen‐
Van Melik, R., & Van Der Krabben, E. (2016). tations. Engineering Project Organization Journal,
Co‐production of public space: Policy transla‐ 6(2/4), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/21573727.
tions from New York City to The Netherlands. Town 2016.1269005
Planning Review, 87(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/ Zwart, S. D., & de Vries, M. J. (2016). Methodological
10.3828/tpr.2016.12 classification of innovative engineering projects. In
van Stijn, A. (in press). Guidance in the application of M. Franssen, P. E. Vermaas, P. Kroes, & A. W.M. Mei‐
research through design: The example of developing jers (Eds.), Philosophy of technology after the empir‐
circular building components. In L. H. M. J. Lousberg, ical turn (pp. 219–248). Springer. https://doi.org/
P. Chan, & J. Heintz (Eds.), Interventionist research 10.1007/978‐3‐319‐33717‐3_13

About the Authors

Macarena Gaete Cruz is a PhD candidate in urban development management (UDM) at Delft University
of Technology, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Management in the Built Environment. Her
research focuses on the co‐design of resilient public spaces. She is an architect and MSc in architec‐
ture from Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. She has experience in academia and practice on
design and management fields, and in the public and private sectors. She is an assistant teacher at
Universidad Católica and master student coach at TU Delft.

Aksel Ersoy is assistant professor in urban development management (UDM) at Delft University of
Technology, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Management in the Built Environment. He is inter‐
ested in understanding the complex relationship between social and economic transformations tak‐
ing place in developing economies, metropolitan cities, and the built environment. His research expe‐
rience has benefitted from a combination of theories and approaches in the discipline of planning,
geography, and beyond.

Darinka Czischke is associate professor at the Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft
University of Technology. She holds a PhD in architecture from TU Delft, an MSc in regional and urban
planning studies from the London School of Economics and Political Science, and a BA in sociology
from the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. In 2014 Darinka was awarded the Delft Technology
Fellowship to establish her own research programme in the field of contemporary collaborative hous‐
ing approaches, the Co‐Lab Knowledge Hub.

Ellen van Bueren is professor and chair of the Department of Management in the Built Environment
at the Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment. Her chair, Urban Development Management,
develops tangible concepts, tools, and principles for an integrated area‐specific approach to contem‐
porary urban challenges. Her career has been inspired by her interest in management and governance
of sustainable urban development. She balances knowledge and practice. She is a board member of
the Leiden‐Delft‐Erasmus Centre for Sustainability and principal investigator at AMS Institute.

Urban Planning, 2022, Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 363–378 378