Impactful co-design: Adult decision-makers’ perspectives on actualising children’s ideas for health-promoting neighbourhoods in Aotearoa New Zealand

Williams, T. ., Ward, K. ., Goodwin, D. ., & Smith, M. . (2024). Impactful co-design: Adult decision-makers’ perspectives on actualising children’s ideas for health-promoting neighbourhoods in Aotearoa New Zealand. Health and Place, 87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2024.103253

Quick Links

Adult decision-makers may find a framework for “impactful co-design” helpful in engaging children in the design of health-promoting communities This study was based on the understanding that children are capable and knowledgeable regarding their health and local environments. It was also based on children’s right to meaningful participation in matters important to them. While children’s participation in the design of local environments is recognized as a value in some communities, the gap between rhetoric and reality in regards to children’s active and meaningful participation in Aotearoa New Zealand endures. The aim of this study was to understand the views of adult decision-makers about what is important for actualizing children’s ideas using co-design in creating health-promoting local environments.

Ten adults experienced in co-design with children (age 5–13) participated in semi-structured individual interviews. The interviewees’ professional background included working in a decision-making capacity and having been involved in co-design of local environments with children in Aotearoa NZ. During the interviews, participants were asked to share insights regarding co-design with children and identify elements of practice they felt should continue or change in support of tangible outcomes. The interviews, which ranged from 55 to 92 minutes in length, were recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were made available to each participant for their review.

The interviewees generally felt that the societal context of the community does not support children’s participation in decision-making. They noted how many adults seemed to think that “adults know better” and how some adults feel uneasy around children’s increasing agency. While the interviewees felt there was some support for a more rights-based approach, they also indicated that a limited understanding of children’s rights in Aotearoa NZ may be a barrier to co-design with children. Three key themes for actualizing children’s ideas in co-design were identified: (1) “Empowering children within co-design” through a process which includes centering children’s ideas to shape tangible outcomes; (2) “Being intentional about children’s influence” in decision making; and (3) “Curating who is involved” by taking an inclusive view of children and including adults who are genuine, skilled, collaborative, and reflexive in working with children. Other key concepts emerging from the data related to (1) the importance of the co-design process being safe, empowering, and evaluated and (2) being aware of the cultural context as a key consideration. Elements of the three themes were used to develop a framework for “impactful co-design” with children, along with a practical checklist for adult decision-makers who are facilitating and/or commissioning co-design with children.

This research adds to the literature by offering a framework and checklist for engaging children as co-designers of health-promoting communities.

The Bottom Line

Adult decision-makers may find a framework for “impactful co-design” helpful in engaging children in the design of health-promoting communities