Talking about co-design and stakeholder engagement is one thing. Knowing how to do it is another. While organisations and universities like to make engagement central to their work, institutional practices are not keeping pace. Institutional policies, publishing pressures, and additional time needed stand in the way. Building capacity for engaged research is more than knowing how to run a focus group.
Engaged research embeds stakeholder views throughout the life of the research project. It encourages creation, and active collaboration with policy makers, practitioners and communities.
A workshop was held mid 2024 to bring together research leaders with hands-on experiences. These are people who are keen to see their research improve things for society and individuals. They see this as a timely opportunity for key people to coordinate their efforts. The result is a large volume published by the National Academies Presscontaining the workshop discussions and ideas.
Partnering with communities, policy makers and others is challenging. Measuring the impact of such research requires a suitable evaluation system.
The book of proceedings has 8 chapters:
Introduction
Importance of engaged researach
Challenges and solutions: synthesising two landscape reviews
Promising approaches for addressing key tensions in community engaged research
Aligning mission and incentives: valuing and prioritizing engaged research
The complex challenges facing society today call for new ways of doing research that bring researchers, policy makers, community leaders and members, industry stakeholders, and others together. The aim is to identify evidence needs, contribute different kinds of knowledge and expertise, and use evidence to accomplish shared goals.
Although momentum is building toward a research enterprise that more routinely enables and rewards this type of collaboration, the development of institutional capacities to support diverse forms of engaged research have not kept pace with the need for them.
Asking mobility device users to come to a focus group or co-design event about transport tells the story of inaccessibility immediately. They need transport to get there. Even when it is possible, it is more inconvenient, difficult, and time consuming than for other transport users. So remote focus groups offer a solution.
The objective of the study was to pilot test an inclusive design approach to obtain information from users often excluded in the design process due to transportation challenges.
The remote focus group participants were users of wheeled mobility devices. The researchers devised a method that worked for users and for the research study. Nine users were each asked to participate in one of two different focus group sessions. One discussed 1 to 7 passenger vehicle transportation systems. The other discussed 8 to 12 passenger vehicle transportation systems. Each participant attended two sessions making four sessions in total.
Each participant was visible on Zoom in the same way as they would in a face to face discussion. However, being remote, they could remain anonymous by using a nickname or a fictitious name. This personalised the sessions and encouraged users to contribute. Video demonstrations of small (1-7 passengers) and midsized (8-12 passengers) vehicles were shown to users.
The researchers asked user’s preferences about various elements of the journey. They included planning, vehicle identification, boarding and alighting, and riding location.
Stable online connections are a must
All participants had access to the technology, but sometimes lack of robust connections happened through the sessions for some participants. This is a potential barrier for individuals who lack sufficient access to the necessary technology.
The researchers conclude that well-designed remote focus groups provide a powerful tool for inclusive and qualitative research. However, there is room to refine the methodology so that participation and data quality are improved.
This study examines the use of remote focus groups to obtain user’s ideas on wheeled mobility devices and Shared Autonomous Vehicles (SAVs). Inclusive design is essential for accessible transportation. Over four virtual sessions we collected statements from nine wheeled mobility device users. They told us about their design preferences, needs, and challenges with SAVs.
The findings highlighted the diverse needs and preferences of participants. This emphasises the importance of collecting information from users early in the design process. Well-planned remote focus groups can be an effective tool to gather design information from user populations that face transportation barriers.
Shared driverless vehicle design
A related research paper from the Intelligent Mobility Design Centre in the UK looks at engaging users in the design process. The key issue of the study is the preparedness to share vehicles on a broad scale.
On-demand shared transportation is a major new mobility innovation and potentially the main mode of transport in coming decades. Studies show that driverless vehicles have potential to accelerate uptake of shared vehicles at scale. People perceive sharing positively but do not necessarily translate perception into action, with desire for personal space a major reason for unwillingness to share vehicles.
Design research is a powerful tool when creating methods and processes to anticipate future possibilities by visualising detailed features of proposed products. We present a set of design research methods engaging end users in a variety of empathy activities and a design process to translate their needs into visual concepts for future shared driverless vehicles that are attractive and more likely to be adopted.
Student voices are important in the design of health and wellbeing infrastructure. Being young does not automatically mean being fit and healthy especially in low socio-economic areas. The ability to share public space and support services is essential to wellbeing at any age. Co-designing with young people provides opportunities to include their perspectives.
Infrastructure development is increasingly being used as a way to support the wide-ranging health and wellbeing needs of target communities. But few projects directly involve children and young people with other stakeholders as key contributors to decision-making.
Children and young people have increasingly complex health and wellbeing needs and there are insufficient spaces and services to meet demand. Researchers at Queensland University of Technology tackle this issue by involving children and young people in the design of a wellbeing infrastructure project.
Place-based approaches refer to connecting infrastructure decision-making with the needs of a local community. It takes a cross-sectoral view of the interrelated infrastructure and amenity needs of a place, and identifies how these should be delivered.
Community hubs
Community hubs are typically multipurpose places that often include health and other community services. In most cases this is both appropriate and cost-efficient. However, few projects directly involve children and young people in the design process.
The research project involved high school students, teachers and other stakeholders in designing a new community hub. This hub is to be co-located at a high school in a community with high health and wellbeing needs.
Co-design and participation
Inclusive co-design with and for children and young people requires support to participate and keep them interested. There are four key factors: Space, Voice, Audience, and Influence:
Provide safe and inclusive spaces for views to be expressed
Give support and information for expressing views
Those in authority must listen to the views shared
Views must be taken seriously and acted upon by those with the power to influence or make decisions.
The article outlines the methods and provides illustrative examples of the students’ views and ideas. Feeling connected to the space was the overarching concept agreed by all stakeholder groups. The diagram taken from the research paper shows the four functions of the hub: community, health, social, and preventative health.
The co-design process revealed the essential nature of the social function – something not previously considered by the organisations involved. The process also provided an opportunity to “flesh out” what the social function might entail.
This research involved working with high school students, teachers, Guidance officers/School Counsellors, and other stakeholders. The project involved co-designing a new Community Hub co-located at a high school in a high-priority community .
We describe the co-design processes for engaging children and young people and adult stakeholders in the ideation and design phase of infrastructure and service development. The object is to support the health and wellbeing of a high priority community with high health needs.
The key insights pointed a way forward for the next stages of infrastructure and service delivery development. it also led to the development of several visual depictions of the complexities of stakeholder interests. Meaningful engagement of potential future users of place-based integrated health and wellbeing services enables responsive infrastructure designs that meet future needs of both target communities and service providers.
Young people and co-design
The views and experiences of young people are often left on the sidelines. Yet they have most to lose or gain in the way society evolves. So perhaps they should be the ones to craft strategies and approaches for creating the futures they want. Co-design methods are clearly the way to get young people participating in social change processes in their local area.
A study focusing on young people creating social change using co-creation techniques provides some useful insights. The aim of the researcher’s exploratory framework was to capture the explicit and implicit aspirations of young individuals. This approach also serves to increase our understanding of how to engage with young people.
The paper explains the methodology of ‘now-wow-how’ phases. This method was selected for accessibility and relevance in facilitating conversations with people unfamiliar with design skills. The co-design process used different tools at different stages.
A section of the paper is devoted to a critical reflection on what could have worked better. For example the author feels the school-based venue potentially limited explorative inquiries.
The study showed that exploratory co-creative sessions with young people can yield innovative insights to inform more direct change. Such sessions require tools that resonate with young peoples’ experiences while also stimulating both critical and creative thinking.
This paper provides details of the project’s structure, methodologies, and outcomes. In so doing, it provides insights into the processes of co-creation within community development and the empowerment of youth.
This study presents an inclusive research approach aimed at cultivating inclusivity and co-creating future living environments that resonate with young peoples’ needs and aspirations.
Through co-creative activities, the project captured insights into the lived experiences and future ambitions of young participants. The findings identify some of the entrenched norms and activities that spurred empathy and inclusive thinking through making and enactment.
The project contributes to the initiatives, strategies and methods for young people to shape the future of their hometown. The ‘Young 2.0’ project serves as a microcosm of the potential inherent in co-design to serve as a conduit for youth to express and enact their visions for a more inclusive society.
Participatory research in the health sector is fraught with obstacles. In particular, choosing appropriate methods to involve the heterogeneous stakeholders in the health system can be difficult. Not only are time constraints and hierarchies between professional (and non-professional) healthcare actors a challenge, but also dealing with patients who may have different physical and psychological limitations.
Accordingly, not all qualitative methods are applicable to all stakeholder groups. Limitations such as speech or visual impairments can make it difficult to participate in focus groups or design workshops. With a workshop at the European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work in 2024, we discussed experiences and lessons learned with participatory methods in the health sector. The workshop showed how different challenges were dealt with and thus opened up a space for reflection on participatory projects.
Other articles in this issue look at using visual metaphors, ideation, and challenges in participation of vulnerable groups in design processes.
Co-design is a term that emerged in the field of accessible and inclusive design. But co-design methods have been around for a long time in one form or another. Academics will recognise this as Participatory Action Research. Citizen science is a version of co-design that has its roots in environmental monitoring. This method is now used in urban planning and design.
Co-design and citizen science have similar principles. The common theme is being inclusive – that the people affected by design decisions help to shape them.
Is citizen science the same as co-design?
Citizen science, participatory action research, and co-design methods are all basically the same, but have roots in different disciplines.
Co-design strategies vary according to the context and complexity of the project as do citizen science projects. The Fifth Estate has an article that discusses citizen science as a method of community engagement in planning. It explains citizen science as a type of research that actively involves members of the public in the research process. Regardless, it makes sense to involve users in the process of the design. This is something the universal design movement has been advocating for some time.
“Citizen science has a long history in conservation and environmental monitoring, but has grown in momentum in recent years across a range of disciplines, including planning and urban design.”
Walkability in Tasmania
A citizen science approach was used in Tasmania. Residents audited the the local environment for barriers to walking. They identified priorities by using a walkability assessment tool taking photos, and participating in workshops. The information gathered was not only useful at a local level, but at state and national levels as well.
“Our use of citizen science is enabling researchers, policy makers and community members to work together to generate data and establish priorities to support walkability that reflects community needs.”
Citizen design science is a synthesis of citizen science and design science that uses a bottom-up approach. The transformation of a car park into a multifunctional public space is the subject of a citizen science paper from Turkey. The authors explain the project and how they went about engaging with citizens. The co-design process relies on communication between designers, residents, visitors and the local authority.
An additional outcome of the project was to establish a Citizen Participation Unit within the municipal authority to facilitate citizen coordination.
A key element of successful co-design is finding ways to design with non-designers through every stage of the project. Establishing a common language is essential for understanding the needs and thoughts of all participants. The authors break down the process into three parts:
Citizen science – type of data collected from participation
Citizen design – citizens actively design
Design science – translation of citizens’ ideas into designs by expert designers
The study showed that people without prior design knowledge are able to work constructively with professional designers.
Citizen Design Science is a co-design strategy for urban and architectural systems that uses design tools for citizens’ observation, experience, and local knowledge. The strategy improves the planning, design, and management of cities, urban habitats, and architectural structures.
This study is about the transformation of Atakent Car Park Area into a public space using a co-design process. Using design science data, two conceptual urban design projects were prepared. This included 178 local citizens’ wishes, needs, and suggestions about the area. Participating citizens were asked to vote for their preferred project and the selected conceptual design was implemented. Laypersons without prior design knowledge were able to establish a common language with a professional designer.
Age-friendly green space by citizen science
In many cities at least a quarter of the population will be over the age of 65 years by 2030. Adelaide in South Australia has one of the oldest populations at 37% over the age of 50. So this is a good place to run a citizen science pilot with older residents.
The method involved the use of smart phones to collect data, and the development of audit tools. The participants were encouraged to go about their daily lives so that the data reflected their natural life.
While the data were not the main focus of the project, several important design elements emerged. In order of importance they were: seating, street trees, natural bushland, park trees and lakes/river/ocean. The researchers noted that public green spaces in local neighbourhoods may be seen as “green corridors” – a conduit to everyday life rather than destinations in themselves. They conclude that citizen science methods are a good way to implement age-friendly urban design at a detailed level.
The quality of public green spaces is mostly measured through expert assessments by planners, designers and developers. A disadvantage of this expert-determined approach is that it often does not consider the appraisals or perceptions of residents. Daily experience, often over long periods of time, means older residents have acquired insider knowledge of their neighbourhood, and thus, may be more qualified to assess these spaces, including measuring what makes a valued or quality public green space.
Age-friendly university with citizen science
And a university campus provides a neat environment for a case study. Researchers at the University of Manitoba went about examining the age-friendliness of their campus using specific citizen science techniques. This is all documented in their article,Exploring University Age-Friendliness Using Collaborative Citizen Science.
The main aim was to test the method, but the data collected were useful as well. The data revealed physical accessibility, signage, and transportation as being the most important for improving overall age-friendliness.
The age-friendly university initiative began in Ireland at the Dublin City University and has turned into a global network. Academic institutions looking to complete assessments of their age-friendliness, particularly those exploring physical barriers and supports, could benefit from incorporating older citizen scientists into the process of collecting, analyzing, and mobilizing findings. You can read more about this global movement in a Forbes article.
Much is discussed about older people and digital exclusion, but this ageist thinking leaves young people out of the discussion. Hence the stereotype of young people being more digitally literate than older cohorts. Not all young people or older people are all the same. Often they have more in common than not. Access to digital devices and digital news and information is a problem for both groups. It just depends on the individual, their background, culture, education and experiences, not their age.
The challenge is to consider young people’s diverse backgrounds in digital design. Digital exclusion restricts social and democratic participation.
A literature review by three researchers in Portugal offer some insights and challenges to the digital media world. Digital media play an important role in young people’s development and learning processes. However, not all young people are the same and some media can also become sources of exclusion.
Gender, race, and socioeconomics intersect
Gender, race, and socioeconomic, cultural, and educational backgrounds intersect and interact leading to compound disadvantages. Too often younger people are seen as well-equipped to consume digital media without considering diversity. Not all young people have attributes that make them more tech-capable. But what is more important is how young people engage with media and how they connect with the world.
Links between young people, news and citizenship
The researchers focused on studies that link young people, news, and their digital citizenship. We need to know more about how young people think, behave and feel, and what they expect from news. Access to news is essential for understanding and participating in democracies. It is part of the quest for enhancing inclusive citizenship.
Researchers suggest there is an “academic urgency to study, both quantitatively and qualitatively, young people and their diversity profiles in media consumption and production in their daily contexts…”
Social and digital exclusion affects each individual’s life and social connection. Stigmatisation, and the gap between those with access to technology and education and those who lack digital citizenship competencies, is evident.
There is an urgent need for research to consider the particularities of the individuals who make up groups rather than focusing on assumed similarities. Diversity is broad and challenging, but focusing on it contributes to understanding the cultural, social, and ideological forces that shape society, its groups, and individuals. We are each all the better for understanding each other.
YouNDigital aims to study youth, their engagement with news, and digital citizenship dynamics. One of the core elements of the project is a digital newsroom, a space for meeting and exploring digital citizenship and news, considering the significant disparities that characterise individuals in this group.
To better understand the target groups and to support the decisions regarding the development of the youth‐led digital newsroom, the research team carried out a systematic literature review focused on youth, digital citizenship, diversity, and different methodological approaches.
We explore the outcomes of the systematic literature review, and delve into the data gathered in one of the subclusters (Diversities). Findings underscore the challenges of inclusivity and diversity. There is a need for tailored media and digital literacy interventions that consider cultural differences, socioeconomic factors, and evolving technological landscapes.
There are difficulties, as well as the positive results, in using digital tools and strategies to trigger learning and motivational processes for diverse audiences. Digital tools that rely on media creation, creativity, critical thinking, and collaboration can promote the empowerment and inclusion of youth from distinct backgrounds, bridging the gap between their realities and citizenship experiences.
The findings point out that involvement in collaborative, immersive, and participatory processes anchored on sustained literature review processes can encourage distancing preconceptions while bringing them closer to research participants. The article contributes to discussions regarding the potential and the challenges of considering youth’s diverse backgrounds through pillars such as co‐creation or inclusive design. Mitigating youth social and digital exclusion to enhance democratic participation is an urgent matter.
England, in post-Brexit mode, has taken a bold step in assessing the practicalities of co-design for broad policy change. However, national policy making systems are not structured for such a democratic process. Consequently, co-designing policy is a new challenge for the civil service. So this study of co-design for Environmental Land Management schemes is an important policy step forward.
Analysis revealed a mismatch between the principles and practices of environmental land management and co-design.
Policy co-design requires changes in government institutional cultures and practices.
This example of co-design processes is both broad and complex. The policy is about phasing out direct payments made to farmers and land managers. It’s also about creating a different system that aligns with other policy goals such as zero carbon emissions.
The Government’s co-design policy puts the responsibility on policy makers to be open to new ideas and ways of working. However, open policy making across the public services is not well defined. It seems the concept of open policy making has failed its commitment to less powerful groups. Indeed, it has given rise to involving the private sector elite experts.
Some of this failure is due to budget cuts across the public sector. Experienced staff were lost and then replaced with “experts”. Consequently, staff prefer the old consultation methods which are quicker and cheaper to run. Co-design methods, when done well, take more time and resources.
Three of the key challenges were:
lack of shared decision making in empowering stakeholders
confidentiality requirements causing barriers
insufficient transparency in how stakeholder views were used, or not
Co-design for long term objectives
This important study highlights the need for ongoing commitment to long term policy development using co-design methods. It also highlights the importance of co-design for longer term objectives that need culture change to be effective. Without culture change the sustainability of the scheme or policy will be compromised.
To enhance co-design methodologies the focus should be on refining and expanding them to ensure applicability across diverse policy domains. The role of emerging technologies could offer some assistance in different ways to facilitate co-design methods. The complexities of power dynamics and their impact on policy outcomes is another important factor to consider.
“This could be more achievable if policy-makers prioritize capacity building among stakeholders to facilitate their active participation in co-design processes. Providing training and resources to community members, especially those from underrepresented groups, will empower them to contribute meaningfully to policy development.”
From the abstract
There are few examples of where co-design has been applied to active policy development on a large scale. England’s post-Brexit Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes offers a fascinating ‘laboratory’ to analyse how co-design at this scale works in practice.
This paper offers the first in-depth empirical assessment of the process from the perspectives of both the policy makers and stakeholders. We provide critical insights on ‘pragmatic’ applications of co-design to active policy development. We reflect on what this tells us about the wider processes of policy development that may need to change. That is, if we want to accommodate this more ‘democratic’ approach.
Our analysis identified key barriers to co-design and revealed a mismatch between the principles and practices of ‘co-design’ in the initial development of ELM.
Challenges were: 1. A lack of shared decision-making and empowering stakeholders to contribute to problem-definitions. 2. Confidentiality requirements that introduced barriers to information-sharing. 3. Insufficient transparency and feedback on what happened to stakeholder’s contributions in terms of policy development. 4. An absence of detail on the schemes, including proposed approaches, payment rates, advice, baseline measures, the kinds of ‘outcomes’ expected, and monitoring mechanisms. 5. A repetition of themes that participants had already discussed.
Many of these mismatches may be common to other policy arenas. We argue that improved application of policy co-design in government will rely on wider changes to political processes and the institutional culture and practices within the civil service.
Community consultation is a vexed issue when officials and community representatives interpret “consultation” in different ways. A Swedish study found, unsurprisingly, that officials expected a fast consultation process for ready-made projects. On the other hand, employees of disability groups were expecting to be more involved. They were expecting participation and partnership. The consequence is conflict.
Swedish national and local policies introduced universal design concepts to make disability part of human diversity. However, appropriately involving people with disability in decisions is another matter. Image from the article.
It is not uncommon to find unsolvable conflicts in a suburban project where planners clash with unaddressed local problems. But the result should not be a wilful dismissal of citizens’ issues. Participation should reduce the risk of contested or disregarded outcomes. However, disregarding disability issues in project development builds mistrust of local authorities.
The Swedish study examined the perception of consultation with people with disability in three Swedish cities, applying a universal design approach. The paper includes many references to the literature to support their qualitative research.
Consultation
The findings of the go-along study, and participant observation at meetings revealed a complex picture of participation styles. In one situation, the consultation expert referred to the needs of people with disability as “opposing interests”. The consultant treated the workshop as an opportunity for them to “blow off steam”.
Partnership
Disability organisation employees saw themselves as partners with the right to negotiate outcomes. But this did not correspond with their experience. Their involvement was too late in the process, and after procurement requirements were set. Having lived experience is they key point, not whether participants understand accessibility legislation. Indeed, openness and creativity are more important than accessibility expertise.
The municipal project leaders were oriented towards Consultation because they wanted to quickly get ready-made proposals confirmed. Employees of disability organizations collaborated with officials as partners in the administration of and recruitment for workshops. However, they wanted ongoing feedback to influence the result.
These different expectations on the aim of participation entailed misunderstandings. So did unclear roles regarding representativity and the asymmetry of resources and interests. Failure to communicate opportunities for influence and the limited roles given to participants generated feelings of uncertainty and mistrust.
Officials were unsure about the legitimacy of participants, and participants about the conditions for influencing the process. These findings suggest that the aim and role of participation would gain from being clarified in advance. Topics such as previous experiences, policy, constraints, and opportunities for influence should be discussed at pre-workshop stage. Thus, co-creative dialogues might be developed.
Co-designing with users is gaining momentum and being applied in many different situations. Participatory Action Research is familiar to academics and now the concepts are underpinning collaborative methods in different fields of endeavour. Co-designing organisational change is a good way to bring everyone on board.
Hospitals are large bureaucratic enterprises comprising staff from varied backgrounds and skill sets. Add in the diversity of patients and visitors and we can see the difficulty of pleasing most, let alone all stakeholders.
Organisational change is a complex process that requires all parties to agree to change. To overcome some of this complexity, Australian researchers used arts-based research methods and arts-based knowledge translation. Their paper outlines the steps in the process and includes some of the participants’ drawings. Workshops, photovoice, photography and digital narratives all had a part to play.
From the conclusion
Both the co-design workshop and visual methods provided opportunities to connect people in an honest and respectful dialogue. System change must engage, educate, support and connect people. Transforming a system is really about transforming relationships between people who make up the system.
Too often organisations, groups, and individuals work on the same problem but work in isolation from each other. Bringing people together is the way to create a positive impact for change.
The arts-based design thinking processes provided a visual mechanism to explore creative solutions. It provided a place for clinicians and consumers to connect and discuss the proposed change strategies. The visual methods enabled time for reflection and then new conversations about care practices emerged.
This chapter tells the story of a complex organisational change to a healthcare service. It is about splitting rehabilitation functions across two hospitals in the same region. The design project was to help healthcare providers from both hospitals reach an understanding of the strengths that each hospital provided to its patients. One was a large metropolitan hospital, and the other a small hospital in a rural area.
Arts-based design methods were used. They included workshops, journey maps, and photovoice experiences from both providers and consumers. The team were able to help the rehabilitation service providers see the value of the organisational change and the potential benefits in the new service.
Co-design in healthcare
Health care is a service and like any service, you want the best for your customers. Customer feedback is common with most services, but knowing the problems after the event is not very effective. The first step is setting up a process that is going to get the most useful design decisions. That means co-designing from the very beginning including co-designing the research method.
An inclusive design approach means listening
A Canadian study documents the process of using an inclusive design approach to design the study. As a report of the process the paper necessarily includes many stories from participants. These stories are rich in information not limited by survey or interview formats and questions. It is up to the listener or researcher to guide these experiences into practical solutions.
The methods in this study are applicable to any public service, such as transport or education.
Storytelling and research design
Storytelling often goes beyond describing the immediate barriers and difficulties in using a service to reveal the impact on a person’s life.
“The inclusive design approach to the study was not rigid because inclusive design is about diversity, variability and complexity.”
Design exercises
The study reports on three options for design exercises:
Option One: co-designers talk about any part of the health care service that needs re-design. Then the group imagines a future where the barrier no longer exists.
Option Two: co-designers discuss their own or another’s experience during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Option 3: co-designers use the research centre’s “virtuous tornado” exercise. The virtuous tornado is a diagram with three circles, In the centre is the statement, “Like and Use”. The next ring has the statement “Don’t like or have difficulty using”. The outer ring has the statement “Can’t Use”. See the diagram below.
Figure 1 from the report with the three options for activities
Floods and fires are a regular occurrence in Australia. However, they are happening more frequently and with more intensity. While there are standards for building evacuations and fire risk management, these were developed without thought for all citizens. And when people need to evacuate to a communal place of safety, there is no guarantee it will be accessible. Crisis planning requires input from all stakeholders and that includes community members.
Researchers in Sweden ran a workshop with stakeholders on crisis planning. One idea was to have practise events so that community members know where to go and what to do.
Fire drills are commonplace in office blocks and institutions for both the occupants and emergency service personnel. Perhaps community members need these type of events to familiarise themselves with evacuation procedures and safe places.
Distributing information or brochures to households is not enough. People need to physically go through the process of getting to important places. They also need to check out places like shelters to ensure they are appropriate for their needs. People also need to know how to handle equipment they wouldn’t normally use. Also, information via the written word assumes everyone can read and comprehend the information.
A co-design, participatory process
The workshop generated collaboration in addressing the crisis scenario presented to the participants. The lived experience of people with disability was a good learning experience for disaster management staff. Maintaining a home preparedness kit is challenging for some people when some medicines are restricted. That means you can’t order in advance to keep a ‘spare’ set.
Although staff had worked previously with organisations to produce written materials, they could see that some people fall between the cracks. People who get by reasonably well and not connected to community services could be missed. Although they are managing with day to day activities they may need support in a crisis.
In summary, the co-design methods allowed for more nuanced information to emerge. Evacuation and rescue solutions are context dependent because each locality is different.
In response to escalating disasters, inclusive crisis planning is crucial. This study examines a specialised workshop that engaged people with disabilities in crisis planning, focusing on a simulated flood scenario.
Stakeholders from disability organizations and the local municipality collaborated, including eight crisis communicators and thirteen individuals with disabilities. The workshop facilitated knowledge exchange and surfaced disability-specific issues.
While successful in raising awareness, challenges arose in relaying detailed perspectives, emphasizing the need for nuanced communication. Locally relevant scenarios strengthened the workshop’s impact.
The findings stress the importance of early involvement of individuals with disabilities in crisis planning and offer insights for researchers and policymakers. This research contributes to enhancing inclusivity in crisis planning and informs future disaster risk reduction.
Vulnerable citizens in floods and fires
While there are standards for building evacuations and fire risk management, these were developed without thought for vulnerable citizens. And when people need to evacuate to a communal place of safety, there is no guarantee it will be accessible.
Residents of the Northern Rivers area of New South Wales are not new to flood events. But the floods are getting worse. A major flood event occurred previously in 2017 and four researchers decided to explore the experiences of people with disability.
They found people with disability and carers are more likely than others to be affected and displaced. Their needs are more immediate and urgent than most, and their mental health is more likely to be compromised.
Their findings show the profound impact and systematic neglect experienced by people with disability and their carers. A longer term recovery period is required for people with disability with tailored supports. Consequently, people with disability should be included in flood preparations and recovery efforts.
The NDIS aims to support people to live independently in a home designed around their disability. This usually means a step free entry and modified bathroom designs. However, little, if any, thought is given to the design of fire safety and safe evacuation in an emergency.
“Fire safety systems must be considered as a total package of risk management, equipment, maintenance, training and fire and evacuation drills. …Where disabled or immobile persons are concerned, the importance of the total package cannot be underestimated.”
Some NDIS participants will need extra support to prepare for and react in an emergency. Hank Van Ravenstein outlines the role of the NDIS in his paper, Fire Safety and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The first part relates the history of the NDIS followed by technical considerations for safety. He argues that the National Construction Code regulations don’t fully address or reflect the needs and risk behaviours of NDIS participants.
If we are to take a universal design approach, if the fire safety regulations aren’t sufficient for people with disability, are they sufficient for everyone?
Bushfire safety
As cities grow and become more compact, some citizens feel the need to “go bush”. This usually means finding a forest haven amongst the trees away from urban living. Then there are those who have always lived in the bush and wouldn’t live anywhere else. But bush living is risky and can be costly in terms of lives and property. It is particularly risky for people with disability and consequently, a different risk assessment process is needed.
Despite fire and rescue authorities encouraging people to prepare for bushfires (and floods), many leave it too late. Some are unable to understand the instructions, or unable to carry them out. A paper by Bennett and Van Ravenstein spells out all the technicalities of fire prevention and control.
The problem with economic models is that they count the things you can count and leave out things you can’t. And sometimes that’s what can happen with co-design methods – doing what you know and not what is possible. A group of researchers adapted the Doughnut Economics model to create the Futures Doughnut tool for co-design for complex settings.
Doughnut economics seeks to address inequities, poverty, and standard of living. It’s about meeting the needs of humans and the planet. A group of researchers have adapted this economic thinking in the context of co-design.
Using a participatory design process, 115 stakeholders explored the model to navigate socio-ethical challenges. The process fostered constructive dialogue, and explored values and boundaries. This is a good process for working in complex institutional systems where stakeholders have diverse perspectives and priorities.
The title of the paper is, Baking an Institutional Doughnut: A systemic design journey for diverse stakeholder engagement. While the context of the paper is a university setting, it sets a good example for other situations with the Futures Doughnut Tool.
Limits of co-design activities
Co-design activities are good for advocating for and helping to generate creativity. However, they are insufficient for complex systems design where continuity of consultation goes beyond design ideation.
Co-creation methods are difficult to compare by definition because they are context dependent. An adaptive and staged systemic design process requires significant time and buy-in from stakeholders. Without this commitment there is a risk of misunderstandings and therefore consensus on decisions.
Co-design is good for finding common ground with diverse vocabularies, disciplines and lived experience. However, it also needs the right tools and methods and the Futures Doughnut was developed with this in mind.
From the abstract
Doughnut Economics offers a compass for navigating the complexities of creating a safe and just space where humanity can flourish while respecting ecological boundaries. This pictorial reports on how the Doughnut Economics model can be applied as a tool for facilitating complex stakeholder engagement.
We present a visual framework and facilitation method for systemic and values-led thinking. The context is establishing a new interdisciplinary academic institution.
Using a participatory design process, 115 stakeholders from academic, research, and administrative backgrounds explored this model. The aim was to co-create an institutional compass to navigate the socio-ethical challenges of their professional practices.
