Co-design in urban freight research and practice: the DISCUSS framework as a participatory innovative method for stakeholder engagement

Every city lives on a constant, invisible flow of goods. From the bread on a morning table to the package arriving at a doorstep, these items travel through a complex network of trucks, vans, and drivers. This final stretch of the journey, known as the last mile, happens right in the middle of our neighborhoods, where delivery vehicles share the road with pedestrians, cyclists, and residents. For years, experts have tried to make this system cleaner and more efficient, often by designing new rules or technologies from the top down. However, these top-down solutions frequently stumble because they miss the messy reality of how people actually live and work. The challenge is not just about moving boxes; it is about balancing the need for businesses to deliver goods with the need for cities to remain livable, safe, and quiet.

To solve this, researchers have begun to look at a different way of working: bringing everyone who is affected by the problem to the same table to design the solution together. This approach, called co-design, treats citizens, shop owners, delivery drivers, and city planners not as subjects to be studied, but as partners who hold essential knowledge. Instead of experts creating a plan and asking for feedback, co-design invites these diverse groups to define the problem and invent the answers side by side. A new study by Philippe Lebeau, Daniela Paddeu, and Bram Kin explores how this method can transform urban freight planning. They propose a specific seven-step guide to help cities and researchers work together effectively, testing this method in three real-world projects to see if it can truly create solutions that people will actually use and support.

The researchers argue that traditional planning often fails because it separates the private world of logistics from the public world of city life. In the past, city officials might design a low-emission zone, or a logistics company might propose a new consolidation center, without fully understanding how the other side would react. This creates friction, where good ideas get stuck in bureaucracy or are rejected by the people they are meant to help. The authors suggest that the missing piece is a genuine shared governance, where the people who use the streets and the people who drive the trucks help decide how those streets should be used. To make this happen, they developed a framework called DISCUSS. The name is an acronym for the seven steps the team follows: Define, Involve, Study, Clarify, Unveil, Set, and Stress-test. Each step is designed to move the group from a vague idea of a problem to a concrete, agreed-upon plan of action.

The process begins by defining the scope and identifying who needs to be at the table. In a traditional study, an expert might decide who to interview. In this co-design approach, the group first asks critical questions to ensure no one important is left out. They consider who benefits from a change, who controls the resources, and whose voice is usually ignored. Once the right mix of people is gathered, the next step is to study the context together. Instead of just showing data on a screen, the group looks at maps, traffic counts, and real-life stories to build a shared understanding of how the current system works. This helps everyone see the same picture, whether they are a city planner looking at regulations or a delivery driver looking at parking difficulties. With this shared knowledge, the group then clarifies the problem. They move past simple complaints like "too many trucks" to find the deeper issues, such as a lack of space for loading or conflicting rules between different government departments.

Once the problem is clearly defined, the group moves to the creative phase, where they unveil potential solutions. This is where the magic of co-design happens: a delivery driver might suggest a timing rule that a city planner never thought of, or a shop owner might propose a delivery method that solves a safety issue. The group uses tools like role-playing games and storyboards to imagine these ideas without fear of judgment. After generating a wide range of possibilities, the team sets actions. They take the best ideas and figure out exactly who needs to do what, what resources are needed, and what barriers might stop the plan from working. Finally, they stress-test and scale the solution. This involves planning how to try the idea on a small scale, measuring if it works, and figuring out how to make it a permanent part of the city's strategy.

The authors tested this framework in three different projects to see how it worked in practice. The first project, called Cilolab, took place in the Netherlands and focused on a new neighborhood being built near a train station. The challenge was that the area was planned to be car-free, but no one had figured out how goods would get there. The co-design team included urban planners, developers, and logistics experts. Through their workshops, they realized that logistics had been an afterthought in the planning process. By working together, they created a toolbox of strategies to integrate delivery needs into the design of the neighborhood from the start. However, the project also showed a limitation: the long timeline of urban development and the reluctance of some private companies to commit to the process made it difficult to finish the final steps.

The second project, GATES, looked at a very new technology: drone deliveries in the United Kingdom. Because drones are a new concept, many people, including local officials, felt they did not have the technical knowledge to contribute. The researchers used the co-design method to show that these stakeholders did not need to be engineers to help. Instead, their knowledge of local laws, community concerns, and safety was exactly what was needed. The group worked together to imagine how drone deliveries could be governed in the future. The process helped build trust and showed that even with unfamiliar technology, a diverse group could create a shared vision for the future.

The third example came from the CodeZERO project in Antwerp, Belgium, which focused on sustainable e-commerce. Here, the team made a deliberate effort to include ordinary consumers, who are often left out of freight planning. They invited online shoppers, a retailer, and a logistics company to work together. The group used a game to understand why current deliveries were unsustainable, which helped them see the problem from different angles. They eventually agreed on a set of actions to improve delivery and returns in the city. The process was successful in creating a strong consensus, though the researchers noted that keeping all participants engaged over time was a challenge, as some consumers dropped out of the second meeting.

The study concludes that co-design is a powerful way to create solutions that are not only technically sound but also socially accepted. By involving everyone from the start, the process creates a sense of shared ownership. When people help design a solution, they are more likely to support it and make it work. The method also brings hidden knowledge to the surface, such as the daily struggles of a delivery driver or the specific concerns of a resident, which experts might miss. However, the authors are clear that this approach is not a quick fix. It requires time, patience, and skilled facilitation to manage the different opinions and power dynamics in the room. It is difficult to keep people engaged for the long haul, and not every project will reach the final stage of implementation.

Despite these challenges, the researchers argue that the benefits outweigh the difficulties. Co-design helps build trust between groups that often see each other as opponents. It turns a top-down mandate into a collaborative journey. The three case studies show that while the path is not always smooth, the destination is worth it: solutions that are grounded in reality, supported by the community, and ready to be tested in the real world. The paper does not claim that this method solves every problem in urban logistics, but it offers a proven way to make the process of solving them more democratic, inclusive, and effective. For cities struggling to balance the needs of commerce with the quality of life for their residents, this approach provides a clear path forward, one step at a time.