Mobility co-creation has established as a policy tool to create urban mobility solutions that better reflect the needs and experiences of the people who use them every day. As part of the SUM Project, Fredrikstad and Coimbra Living Labs has focused on this process. During the recent SUM capacity building in Coimbra, partners and stakeholders explored how collaborative approaches can support the design of complex multimodal hubs.
The workshop focused on Praça Mota Pinto, a future mobility hub connecting multiple transport modes in an area shaped by hospitals, schools, residential neighbourhoods and heavy pedestrian flows. By bringing together planners, operators and everyday users in the same room, the session highlighted the value of exchanging perspectives early in the planning process.
In this interview, Yuren Chen, from Chalmers University of Technology, shares insights from the workshop, reflecting on the role of co-design in mobility planning, the challenges encountered, and the lessons learned from the experience in Coimbra.
Q1. In your experience, how does co-design differ from co-creation in practice, and why was co-design the right approach for this workshop?
We see co-design as a specific type of co-creation. Co-creation, as described by Elizabeth Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers, refers broadly to any act of collective creativity, it is rather open in terms of who is involved and how. Co-design, in contrast, is more specific: it actively involves users AND relevant stakeholders throughout the design process, ideally from problem framing to solution development and beyond. It is not a one-off activity, but an ongoing process. This made co-design particularly suitable for the Praça Mota Pinto case, given its complexity and the variety of mobility services involved. We brought together neighbourhood users (from the hospital, school, and university), mobility providers (BRT, buses, taxis, micromobility), and public authorities (traffic, public space, green, project, inclusion etc). Rather than being consulted, participants worked together to shape solutions.
Although the SUM project timeline only allowed for one workshop, this was built on earlier co-creation work in the Fredrikstad General Assembly. That earlier phase helped planners identify both the site and relevant stakeholders, making the co-design process in Coimbra more focused and effective. Importantly, this is an ongoing project, which allows us to follow how co-design outcomes evolve into implementation.
Q2. What did the co-design process reveal about the future of Praça Mota Pinto that might not have emerged through more traditional participation methods?
The process generated solutions that reflect the needs of multiple groups, rather than a single perspective. This led to more balanced and comprehensive proposals.
Equally important was the learning that took place between participants. According to participants’ reflections, many highlighted how valuable it was to hear other perspectives and better understand the broader mobility system. This mutual understanding helped ease conflicting interests, as participants were more willing to step back from their own priorities and consider solutions that benefit a wider range of users. This kind of shared reflection and negotiation is difficult to achieve through more traditional participation methods, which often collect input without enabling dialogue between different actors.
Q3. How did working in mixed groups shape the kinds of solutions that were proposed?
Working in mixed groups allowed participants to combine different types of knowledge, for example, professional expertise and everyday experience, into a more complete picture of how the space is used. This can lead to solutions that serve multiple user groups simultaneously. For example, several groups proposed a kiosk concept offering a mix of services. Because different actors were present, they could immediately discuss how such a space would work for drivers, patients, and students, resulting in more concrete and spatially grounded proposals. In this sense, the diversity of the groups didn’t just generate more ideas; it helped make them more realistic and integrative.
Q4. From your perspective, what are the key conditions needed for co-design outcomes to actually influence implementation?
Co-design is powerful for generating insights and fostering mutual understanding, but its impact on implementation depends on several conditions.
First, it is important to plan for what happens after the co-design activities. The process should be designed to directly support the project’s next steps.
Second, working on a real and ongoing project increases the chances of impact, as ideas can be directly connected to actual decision-making processes.
Finally, involving decision-makers is crucial. When key actors are part of the co-design process, they are more likely to feel ownership of the outcomes and be motivated to carry them forward despite practical constraints such as timelines, institutional priorities, and governance complexity.
Special recognition goes to the local organising team at Câmara Municipal de Coimbra, particularly Melissa Quaresma Gama for coordinating recruitment and supporting the design, preparation and translation of the workshop, and Tiago Cardoso for helping define the design space and engaging key stakeholders across organisations, whose contributions made such a diverse gathering possible.
