Abstract
While participatory design approaches such as co-creation and co-design are increasingly used to develop circular solutions, there are limited contributions on assessing their impact. This paper systematically reviews and compares fourteen existing evaluation frameworks and models for collaborative design approaches across domains such as public health, social innovation and energy transition. Through a systematic literature review and comparative analysis, the study examines how impact is conceptualised and assessed, the extent to which existing approaches are operationalised, and their applicability to circular transition contexts. Results show that most frameworks do not explicitly define or evaluate impact, offer limited operational guidance, and only partially address key dimensions relevant to circular transitions, such as multi-level and long-term effects. These gaps highlight the need for evaluation approaches that are both adaptable to the situated nature of co-creation and sufficiently rigorous to capture its contribution to circular transitions.
Keywords
co-creation, circular economy, evaluation framework, impact assessment
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2026.1428
Citation
Komlossy, T., van Dam, S., and Bakker, C. (2026) Capturing the impact of co-creation in circular transitions: A comparative analysis of evaluation frameworks and models, in Simeone, L., Gray, C. M., Verhoeven, A., de Götzen, A., Bakırlıoğlu, Y., Zohar, H., Stead, M., and Buwert, P. (eds.), DRS2026: Edinburgh, 8–12 June, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2026.1428
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Included in
Capturing the impact of co-creation in circular transitions: A comparative analysis of evaluation frameworks and models
While participatory design approaches such as co-creation and co-design are increasingly used to develop circular solutions, there are limited contributions on assessing their impact. This paper systematically reviews and compares fourteen existing evaluation frameworks and models for collaborative design approaches across domains such as public health, social innovation and energy transition. Through a systematic literature review and comparative analysis, the study examines how impact is conceptualised and assessed, the extent to which existing approaches are operationalised, and their applicability to circular transition contexts. Results show that most frameworks do not explicitly define or evaluate impact, offer limited operational guidance, and only partially address key dimensions relevant to circular transitions, such as multi-level and long-term effects. These gaps highlight the need for evaluation approaches that are both adaptable to the situated nature of co-creation and sufficiently rigorous to capture its contribution to circular transitions.