Introduction: In recent years, classical participatory processes led by municipalities and governmental institutions have increasingly failed to respond effectively to the complexity and dynamism of urban governance. These traditional methods often suffer from limited citizen involvement, top-down decision-making, and a lack of flexibility in responding to evolving urban challenges. Consequently, there is a growing need for innovative, adaptive, and inclusive approaches that can foster more meaningful and sustainable participation in urban development. This study seeks to address this gap by developing a comprehensive conceptual framework for urban co-creation within the context of participatory governance. The primary aim is to explore and clarify the roles and interactions of various urban actors—citizens, governmental institutions, and intermediaries—and to construct a practical strategy for enhancing citizen engagement in the urban management process. Through this framework, the study aspires to contribute to the theoretical and operational understanding of how co-creation can be institutionalized within urban governance systems to produce more democratic, responsive, and equitable outcomes.
Methodology: The research adopted an applied and developmental design, integrating both qualitative and quantitative approaches through a mixed-methods methodology. The initial phase involved an extensive literature review of existing models and conceptual frameworks related to co-creation and urban participatory governance. This theoretical exploration led to the formulation of a preliminary conceptual model consisting of potential components and phases of urban co-creation.
To validate and refine the preliminary framework, the Delphi method was employed in three rounds. The Delphi technique is widely used in exploratory and consensus-seeking research to harness expert opinions. A panel of 32 experts was selected, comprising university academics, urban governance practitioners, municipal decision-makers, and specialists in citizen participation and urban planning. Data collection tools included document analysis and a semi-structured questionnaire based on a 7-point Likert scale. In each Delphi round, participants were asked to assess the relevance, clarity, and importance of identified components and dimensions.
Statistical analyses were performed at each stage to measure the level of consensus. Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) was calculated to assess the degree of agreement among panelists, and the binomial test was used to confirm the acceptability of individual items based on a 70% agreement threshold, as recommended by expert consultation.
Results and Discussion: The final conceptual framework of urban co-creation includes three primary components:
1. Actors Involved in Co-Creation – This component identifies the roles of citizens, municipal authorities, civil society organizations, and intermediaries in the co-creation process.
2. Interactive Communication Mechanisms – This refers to the tools and platforms (both formal and informal) that facilitate ongoing dialogue, mutual learning, and shared decision-making.
3. Municipal System – This includes institutional readiness, regulatory frameworks, and organizational structures that support or hinder co-creation efforts.
Additionally, the framework outlines four progressive phases of urban co-creation:
• Co-Ideation (joint problem identification and idea generation),
• Co-Design (collaborative planning and design of solutions),
• Co-Production (joint implementation of services or policies), and
• Co-Evaluation (shared monitoring and evaluation of outcomes).
A total of 15 key elements were validated within these components and phases. During the first round of Delphi, all initial 14 proposed elements were approved by the panel, with one additional element related to municipal regulations being suggested and accepted. In the second round, the 15 elements were re-evaluated using the Likert scale and confirmed. Kendall’s W in the second round was 0.705, indicating strong agreement. In the third round, which involved 30 of the original 32 experts, the coefficient rose to 0.713, showing consistent and strong consensus. The similarity of rankings and stable component structure across the second and third rounds indicated that the process could be concluded at three rounds.
Conclusion: This study underscores the necessity of transitioning from conventional, often symbolic participatory practices toward more genuine, dialogical, and co-productive forms of engagement in urban governance. The final conceptual framework provides a structured, yet flexible, approach for municipalities and urban policymakers to design and implement participatory processes that go beyond consultation to active collaboration. By recognizing citizens not merely as recipients of services but as co-creators of urban solutions, cities can build more resilient, inclusive, and adaptive governance systems. The framework offers theoretical insight and practical guidance for future research and application in diverse urban contexts, particularly in rapidly urbanizing societies where citizen trust, legitimacy, and institutional responsiveness are crucial. Ultimately, institutionalizing co-creation in urban governance can foster democratic renewal, enhance public value, and contribute to more just and sustainable urban futures.