Co-Creation in European Urban Climate Neutrality Projects: When is it 'worth it'? SWOT analysis of co-creation in climate neutrality projects in Aarhus, Bristol, and Gothenburg
(2026) In IIIEE Master Thesis IMEM01 20261The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics
- Abstract
- Co-creation is gaining popularity as a form of public participation, especially in urban environments, as a way to engage the public and private sectors more fully for increased solutions to complex challenges like climate change. However, co-creation can be expensive and take time and resources to implement. By conducting a literature review and interviewing co-creation participants from three European projects, this research explores the question of when
and how co-creation’s advantages outweigh its disadvantages. Through the literature review, an analytical framework featuring the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of co-creation was developed. Using this framework, interviews with eight participants from three... (More) - Co-creation is gaining popularity as a form of public participation, especially in urban environments, as a way to engage the public and private sectors more fully for increased solutions to complex challenges like climate change. However, co-creation can be expensive and take time and resources to implement. By conducting a literature review and interviewing co-creation participants from three European projects, this research explores the question of when
and how co-creation’s advantages outweigh its disadvantages. Through the literature review, an analytical framework featuring the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of co-creation was developed. Using this framework, interviews with eight participants from three co-creation cases in Aarhus, Denmark (Co-SHAPE), Bristol, UK (Mission Net Zero), and Gothenburg, Sweden (MOSAIC) were analyzed to determine the effectiveness of co-creation in three different settings across Europe. An effective project had more advantages (strengths plus opportunities) than disadvantages (weaknesses plus threats).
Based on these metrics, the Co-SHAPE and Mission Net Zero projects were effective, and the MOSAIC project was not. Each case portrayed different advantages and disadvantages of co-creation, but a few common patterns and lessons emerged, chief among them: having a pre-existing network of connections facilitates collaboration, dedicating time to create a common language is necessary, creating a balance between focus on outcomes and the process increases learnings, and main barriers included entrenched political traditions, bad communication, and the overall structure of laws influences project goals, design, and uptake of solutions.
These findings provide lessons for city government officials looking to implement co-creation for the urban climate transition to enhance the success of such projects and their solutions. The analytical framework presented in this research also provides a means to evaluate the effectiveness of additional co-creation projects and create solutions generalizable to a wider range of cities to advance the urban climate transition. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9247777
- author
- Gardella, Hanna LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- IMEM01 20261
- year
- 2026
- type
- H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
- subject
- keywords
- Co-creation, urban governance, urban climate transition, public participation
- publication/series
- IIIEE Master Thesis
- report number
- 2026:04
- ISSN
- 1401-9191
- language
- English
- id
- 9247777
- date added to LUP
- 2026-08-10 09:33:26
- date last changed
- 2026-08-10 09:33:26
@misc{9247777,
abstract = {{Co-creation is gaining popularity as a form of public participation, especially in urban environments, as a way to engage the public and private sectors more fully for increased solutions to complex challenges like climate change. However, co-creation can be expensive and take time and resources to implement. By conducting a literature review and interviewing co-creation participants from three European projects, this research explores the question of when
and how co-creation’s advantages outweigh its disadvantages. Through the literature review, an analytical framework featuring the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of co-creation was developed. Using this framework, interviews with eight participants from three co-creation cases in Aarhus, Denmark (Co-SHAPE), Bristol, UK (Mission Net Zero), and Gothenburg, Sweden (MOSAIC) were analyzed to determine the effectiveness of co-creation in three different settings across Europe. An effective project had more advantages (strengths plus opportunities) than disadvantages (weaknesses plus threats).
Based on these metrics, the Co-SHAPE and Mission Net Zero projects were effective, and the MOSAIC project was not. Each case portrayed different advantages and disadvantages of co-creation, but a few common patterns and lessons emerged, chief among them: having a pre-existing network of connections facilitates collaboration, dedicating time to create a common language is necessary, creating a balance between focus on outcomes and the process increases learnings, and main barriers included entrenched political traditions, bad communication, and the overall structure of laws influences project goals, design, and uptake of solutions.
These findings provide lessons for city government officials looking to implement co-creation for the urban climate transition to enhance the success of such projects and their solutions. The analytical framework presented in this research also provides a means to evaluate the effectiveness of additional co-creation projects and create solutions generalizable to a wider range of cities to advance the urban climate transition.}},
author = {{Gardella, Hanna}},
issn = {{1401-9191}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
series = {{IIIEE Master Thesis}},
title = {{Co-Creation in European Urban Climate Neutrality Projects: When is it 'worth it'? SWOT analysis of co-creation in climate neutrality projects in Aarhus, Bristol, and Gothenburg}},
year = {{2026}},
}