Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41535353›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Co-creating micro-scale nature-based designs in Tshwane, South Africa: balancing stakeholder interests in the design process.

Tania Du Plessis, Kathy Berger, Maya Pasgaard, Christina Breed

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Tania Du PlessisDepartment of Architecture, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0028, South Africa. tania@bpla.co.za.
Kathy BergerDepartment of Biology, Aarhus University, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark.
Maya PasgaardDepartment of Biology, Aarhus University, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark.
Christina BreedDepartment of Architecture, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0028, South Africa.

Funding

The Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs through the Danida Fellowship Centre grant no. 23-M02-AU
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rapid urbanization and climate adaptation pressures have escalated the need for co-created nature-based design solutions to address infrastructure challenges in urban green spaces. Yet, how diverse, cross-sectoral stakeholder expectations are navigated in these processes remains underexplored. This study investigates the feasibility of integrating co-creation into conventional landscape design practices, highlighting the associated stakeholder interests. The study took place in a South African marginalized peri-urban community and employed a multi-method approach including site surveys, focus group discussions, informal conversations, and co-design workshops. Our findings suggest that co-creation involves ascertaining buy-in from all stakeholders through a shared vision, inspiring capacity strengthening and empowerment, valuing knowledge exchange and reciprocal learning, identifying champions and bridging agents, and building bonds and maintaining trust. In co-creation, the designer becomes a facilitator rather than a creator, who must manage an extended co-design process that becomes part of the overall output. The feasibility of this process depends on managing degrees of co-creation through time, balancing desired outcomes between stakeholders, and focusing on dedicated engagement. Despite challenges, co-creating micro-scale nature-based designs can be used as a method of contextual inquiry and show potential to foster social inclusivity, reciprocal learning, and sustainable urban green space transformation.

Indexed as

Action-researchLandscape architectureNature-based solutionsParticipatory designSub-Saharan AfricaTransdisciplinary

Identifiers

PMID41535353
PMCPMC12858899

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.