AccScience Publishing / DP / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/DP025110019
Submit to DP
Cite this article
10
Download
204
Views
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
Forthcoming Issue
Current Issue
View All
News and Announcements
View All
ARTICLE

Bridging theory and practice: A practical toolbox for implementing co-creation in urban design

Katharina Johanna Oetken1*
Show Less
1 Real Estate Management Institute, EBS Business School, EBS University, Oestrich-Winkel, Hessen, Germany
DP, 025110019 https://doi.org/10.36922/DP025110019
Received: 14 March 2025 | Revised: 19 February 2026 | Accepted: 28 February 2026 | Published online: 22 April 2026
© 2026 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Download PDF
XML
Cite
Abstract

In contemporary urban design, co-creation has become increasingly relevant as an approach to address complex social, spatial, and governance-related challenges. This study develops an empirically informed framework for structuring co-creation processes in urban design, based on theme-centered interaction (TCI). Drawing on qualitative case study material, this study translates key relational, procedural, and contextual dynamics of co-creation into a structured set of guiding principles that address individual perspectives, group dynamics, task-oriented challenges, and broader contextual conditions. The framework offers analytically grounded guidance to support reflective, process-oriented co-creation in urban design. In addition, the study introduces steward ownership as a novel interpretative governance perspective that helps contextualize and stabilize co-creative outcomes beyond the design phase. Steward ownership is presented as a conceptual governance perspective, rather than an empirical finding, that aligns with values of shared responsibility, long-term orientation, and collective stewardship. By linking empirical insights with TCI-based process structuring and governance considerations, this study contributes to ongoing debates on how co-creation in urban design can be more systematically organized and institutionally sustained in practice.

Keywords
Co-creation
Urban design
Theme-centered interaction
Governance
Steward ownership
Collaborative design
Funding
None.
Conflict of interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest.
References
  1. Kellert SR. Building for life: Designing and understanding the human-nature connection. Washington, D.C., USA: Island Press; 2012.

 

  1. Graham LM. Reparations, self-determination, and the seventh generation. Harv Hum Rts J. 2008;21:47.

 

  1. Naisbitt J. Megatrends. Hestia Verl. 1984.

 

  1. Zeiderman A, Dawson K. Urban futures. City. 2022;26(2- 3):261-280. doi: 10.1080/13604813.2022.2035964

 

  1. United Nations DoEaSA. Population Division World Cities Report 2022: Envisaging the Future of Cities. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development; 2022.

 

  1. Healey P. Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge; 2006.

 

  1. Brenner N, Schmid C. The ‘urban age’ in question. Int J Urban Reg Res. 2014;38(3):731-755. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12115

 

  1. Dalsgaard AMd, Sørensen, S.B. (production). The Human Scale [Film]. Denmark: final cut for real APS, Eurovideo; 2013.

 

  1. ArchDaily. Spotlight: Jane Jacobs. 2019. Available from: https://wwwarchdailycom/502096/happy-birthday-jane-jacobs [Last accessed on 29 Feburary, 2024].

 

  1. Jacobs J. Vital Little Plans: The Short Works of Jane Jacobs. New York, NY, USA: Penguin Random House; 2016.

 

  1. Voorberg WH, Bekkers VJ, Tummers LG. A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Manag Rev. 2015;17(9):1333-1357. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2014.930505

 

  1. Healey P. Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing; 2020.

 

  1. Fainstein SS. Planning and the just city. In: Searching for the Just City. Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge; 2009;39-59.

 

  1. Oetken KJ. Unravelling the why: Exploring the increasing recognition and adoption of co-creation in contemporary urban design. Sustain Communities. 2025;2(1). doi: 10.1080/29931282.2025.2477788.

 

  1. Lund DH. Co-Creation in Urban Governance: From Inclusion to Innovation. Scand J Public Adm. 2018;22(2):3- 17. doi: 10.58235/sjpa.v22i2.11422

 

  1. Carmona M. Public Places, Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design. Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge; 2010.

 

  1. De Lange M, De Waal M. Owning the city: New media and citizen engagement in urban design. In: Urban land use. Palm Bay, FL, USA: Apple Academic Press; 2017:109-130.

 

  1. Gemser G, Perks H. Co-Creation with customers: An evolving innovation research field: virtual issue editorial. J Prod Innov Manag. 2015;32(5):660-665. doi: 10.1111/jpim.12279

 

  1. Cohn RC. Von der Psychoanalyse zur themenzentrierten Interaktion: von der Behandlung einzelner zu einer Pädagogik für alle [From psychoanalysis to theme-centered interaction: From the treatment of individuals to a pedagogy for all]. Stuttgart, Germany: Klett-Cotta; 2009.

 

  1. Mumford L. What Is a City?(1938). In: Bandarin F, van Oers R, editors. Historic Cities: Issues in Urban Conservation. Getty Conservation Institute; 2019:49-53

 

  1. Koolhaas R. Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 1978.

 

  1. Benevolo L. Die Geschichte der Stadt [The history of the city], 9th ed. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus Verlag; 2007.

 

  1. Lewis ME. The construction of space in early China. Albany, NY, USA: State University of New York Press; 2012.

 

  1. Aristotle A. The ethics of Aristotle. BoD–Books on Demand; 2019.

 

  1. Venturi R. Complexity and contradiction in architecture. New York, NY, USA: The Museum of Modern Art; 1977;1.

 

  1. Katz P. The New Urbanism: Toward an architecture of community. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill; 1994.

 

  1. Fulton W. The new urbanism. Cambridge, MA, USA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy; 1996.

 

  1. Harvey D. Rebellische Städte [Rebel cities: From the right to the city to the urban revolution]. Berlin, Germany: Suhrkamp Verlag; 2013.

 

  1. Lefebvre H. Das Recht auf Stadt: Nautilus Flugschrift [The right to the city]. Hamburg, Germany: Edition Nautilus; 2016.

 

  1. Mitchell D. The right to the city: Social justice and the fight for public space. New York, NY, USA: Guilford Press; 2003.

 

  1. Zukin S. Whose culture? Whose city? The Cultural Geography Reader. Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge; 2008:443- 450.

 

  1. Arnstein SR. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. J Am Plan Assoc. 2019;85(1):24-34. doi: 10.1080/01944363.2018.1559388

 

  1. Davidoff P. Advocacy and pluralism in planning. J Am Inst Plan. 1965;31(4):331-338. doi: 10.1080/01944366508978187

 

  1. Jacobs J. The death and life of great American Cities. New York, NY, USA: Vintage Books; 1992.

 

  1. Lynch K. The image of the city. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press; 1964.

 

  1. Prahalad CK, Ramaswamy V. Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. J Interact Mark. 2004;18(3):5- 14. doi: 10.1002/dir.20015

 

  1. Bovaird T. Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Adm Rev. 2007;67(5):846-860. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x

 

  1. Oetken KJ, Hennig K, Henkel S, Merfeld K. A psychoanalytical approach in urban design: exploring dynamics of co-creation through theme-centred interaction. J Urban Des. 2024:1-28. doi: 10.1080/13574809.2024.2351911

 

  1. Schneider-Landolf M, Spielmann J, Zitterbarth W. Handbook of Theme-Centered Interaction (TCI). Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Gmbh & Co; 2017.

 

  1. Löhmer C, Standhardt R. TZI–die Kunst, sich selbst und eine Gruppe zu leiten: Einführung in die themenzentrierte Interaktion [TCI–the art of leading oneself and a group: Introduction to theme-centered interaction]. Stuttgart, Germany: Klett-Cotta; 2015.

 

  1. Creswell JW, Creswell JD. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications; 2017.

 

  1. Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ. Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educ Res. 2004;33(7):14-26. doi: 10.3102/0013189X033007014

 

  1. Merriam SB, Tisdell EJ. Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons; 2015.

 

  1. Spradley JP. Participant observation. Belmont, CA, USA: Wadsworth; 1980:3-35.

 

  1. Fowler Jr FJ. Survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications; 2013.

 

  1. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol. 1932;140:1-55.

 

  1. Seidman I. Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York, NY, USA: Teachers College Press; 2006.

 

  1. Ansell C, Gash A. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2008;18(4):543-571. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mum032

 

  1. Kant I. Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten [Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals]. Berlin, Germany: L. Heimann;1870;28.

 

  1. Smith A. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Read Econ Sociol. 2002:6-17.

 

  1. Steuernagel A, Wagner T, Ernst G. Stiftung Verantwortungseigentum [Foundation for Steward- Ownership]. 2024. Available from: https://stiftung-verantwortungseigentum.de [Last accessed on 29 February, 2024].
Next article in this issue
Share
Back to top
Design+, Electronic ISSN: 3060-8953 Published by AccScience Publishing
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here
Accept