Downloads

1. Whitmee, S., et al., Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: Report of the Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on planetary health, in The Lancet. 2015. 2. Meadows, D.H. and Club of Rome., The Limits to growth; a report for the Club of Rome's project on the predicament of mankind. 1972, New York,: Universe Books. 205 p. 3. Prescott, S.L. and A.C. Logan, Planetary Health: From the Wellspring of Holistic Medicine to Personal and Public Health Imperative. Explore (NY), 2019. 15(2): p. 98-106. 4. Alliance;, P.H. Planetary Health. 2024 6th August 2024]; Available from: https://www.planetaryhealthalliance.org/planetary-health. 5. OECD. Cities and Environment. 2023 23 11 23]; Available from: https://www.oecd.org/cfe/cities/cities-environment.htm#:~:text=Cities%20account%20for%20more%20than,half%20of%20the%20world's%20population. 6. International Resource Panel, The Weight of Cities: Resource Requirements of Future Urbanization. 2018: United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. 7. Moerder, C., L. Hamilton, and J. Alper, Health-Focused Public-Private Partnerships in the Urban Context: Proceedings of a Workshop. 2020, Washington (DC). 8. Grant M, B.C., Caiaffa W T, Capon A, Corburn J, Coutts C, Crespo C J, Ellis G, Ferguson G, Fudge C, Hancock T, Lawrence RJ, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Oni T, Thompson S, Wagenaar C & Ward Thompson C,, Cities and health: an evolving global conversation. Cities & Health, 2017. 1(1). 9. Black, D., et al., Overcoming systemic barriers preventing healthy urban development in the UK: main findings from interviewing senior decision-makers during a three-year planetary health pilot. Journal of Urban Health, 2021. 10. Pain, K. and G. Van Hamme, Changing urban and regional relations in a globalizing world: Europe as a global macro-region. 2014, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham. 11. UKPRP, The UK Prevention Research Partnership (UKPRP): Vision, objectives and rationale. 2018. 12. Stern, N., Building on Success and Learning from Experience. An Independent Review of the Research Excellence Framework. 2016. p. 56. 13. UKRI. Co-Production in Research. 2023 [cited 2023 11/10/23]; Available from: https://www.ukri.org/manage-your-award/good-research-resource-hub/research-co-production/#:~:text=Co%2Dproduction%20often%20includes%20academic,ethics%20around%20their%20joint%20research. 14. JPI Urban Europe. Sustainable Urbanisation Global Initiative (SUGI)/Food-Water-Energy Nexus. 2018; Available from: https://jpi-urbaneurope.eu/calls/sugi/. 15. Bammer, G., Disciplining Interdisciplinarity: Integration and Implementation Sciences for Researching Complex Real-World Problems, in Disciplining Interdisciplinarity: Integration and Implementation Sciences for Researching Complex Real-World Problems. 2013. 16. ESG, Earth System Governance. Science and Implementation Plan of the Earth System Governance Project. 2018: Utrecht, Netherlands. 17. Alliance, P.H. Planetary Health. 2023 [cited 2023 11/10/23]; Available from: https://www.planetaryhealthalliance.org/planetary-health. 18. British Academy, CROSSING PATHS: INTERDISCIPLINARY INSTITUTIONS, CAREERS, EDUCATION AND APPLICATIONS. 2016, British Academy: London, UK. 19. Sciences, A.o.M. Improving the health of the public by 2040. 2016. London. 20. OECD, Addressing societal challenges using transdisciplinary research, in OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers. 2020, OECD Publishing: Paris. 21. Pohl C, W.G., Methods for Coproduction of Knowledge Among Diverse Disciplines and Stakeholders, in Strategies for Team Science Success, K. Hall, Vogel, A., Croyle, R. (eds) Editor. 2019, Springer. 22. Black D, B.G., Ayres S, Bondy K, Callway R, Carhart N, Coggon J, Gibson A, Hunt A, Rosenberg G,, Operationalising a large research programme tackling complex urban and planetary health problems: a case study approach to critical reflection. Sustainability Science, 2023. 23. Carhart N, R.G., Pregnolato M,, Understanding emergent behaviour within the economic infrastructure system-of-systems. 2020. 24. Reed, M.S., et al., Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management, in Journal of Environmental Management. 2009. 25. Balane, M.A., et al., Enhancing the use of stakeholder analysis for policy implementation research: towards a novel framing and operationalised measures. BMJ Glob Health, 2020. 5(11). 26. Williams, O., et al., Lost in the shadows: reflections on the dark side of co-production. Health Res Policy Syst, 2020. 18(1): p. 43. 27. Vaughn L, J.F., Participatory Research Methods – Choice Points in the Research Process. Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 2020. 28. Arnstein, S.R., A Ladder Of Citizen Participation, in Journal of the American Planning Association. 1969. p. 216-224. 29. Wates N, Action Planning: How to use planning weekends and urban design action teams to improve your environment. 1996: The Prince of Wales’ Institute of Architecture. 30. Lane, M.B., Public participation in planning: An intellectual history, in Australian Geographer. 2005. 31. Fioretos O, F.T., Sheingate A, Historical Institutionalism in Political Science, in The Oxford Handbook of Historical Institutionalism. 2016, Oxford University Press: Oxford. 32. Pacione M, The rhetoric and reality of public participation in planning. Urban Development Issues, 2019. 63. 33. Innes, J.E. and D.E. Booher, Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century, in Planning Theory and Practice. 2004. 34. Tauxe, C.S., Marinalizing public participation in local planning- an ethnographic account, in Journal of the American Planning Association. 1995. 35. Oliver, K., A. Kothari, and N. Mays, The dark side of coproduction: Do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?, in Health Research Policy and Systems. 2019, Health Research Policy and Systems. p. 1-10. 36. Rydin, Y. and M. Pennington, Public participation and local environmental planning: The collective action problem and the potential of social capital, in Local Environment. 2000. 37. Hall, J., et al., A co-production approach guided by the behaviour change wheel to develop an intervention for reducing sedentary behaviour after stroke. Pilot Feasibility Stud, 2020. 6: p. 115. 38. Hawkins, J., et al., Development of a framework for the co-production and prototyping of public health interventions. BMC Public Health, 2017. 17(1): p. 689. 39. Hubbard, G., et al., Co-production of "nature walks for wellbeing" public health intervention for people with severe mental illness: use of theory and practical know-how. BMC Public Health, 2020. 20(1): p. 428. 40. Baztan, J., et al., Facing climate injustices: Community trust-building for climate services through arts and sciences narrative co-production. Clim Risk Manag, 2020. 30: p. 100253. 41. Satorras M, R.-M.I., Monterde A, March H, Co-production of urban climate planning: Insights from the Barcelona Climate Plan. Cities, 2020. 106. 42. Skivington K, M.L., Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, Boyd KA, Craig N, French DP, McIntosh E, Petticrew M, Rycroft-Malone J, White M, Moore L, A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ, 2021. 43. Gardner G, The City: A System of Systems, in State of the World. 2016, Island Press: Washington, D.C. 44. Black D, A.S., Bondy K et al. , Tackling Root Causes Upstream of Unhealthy Urban Development (TRUUD): Protocol of a five-year prevention research consortium. 2022, Wellcome Open Access: London. 45. Trejo-Nieto, A., Financialising city statecraft and infrastructure, in Regional Studies. 2020. 46. Moallemi, E.Z., F; Hebinck A; Szetey, K; Molina-Perez E; Zyngier R; Hadjikakou M; Kwakkel J; Haasnoot M; Miller K; Groves D; Leith P; Bryan B, Knowledge co-production for decision-making in human-natural systems under uncertainty. Global Environmental Change, 2023. 47. Bandola-Gill, J.A.M.I.L., R;, What is co-production? Conceptualising and understanding co-production of knowledge and policy across different theoretical perspectives. Evidence & Policy, 2023. 19: p. 275-298. 48. van der Graaf, P., et al., Leading co-production in five UK collaborative research partnerships (2008-2018): responses to four tensions from senior leaders using auto-ethnography. Implement Sci Commun, 2023. 4(1): p. 12. 49. Catherine Durose, B.P., Liz Richardson, Is co-production a ‘good’ concept? Three responses. Futures, 2022. 50. INVOLVE, N., Guidance on co-producing a research project. 2019. 51. Bianca Vienni-Baptista, I.F., Catherine Lyall, Christian Pohl, Embracing heterogeneity: Why plural understandings strengthen interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. Science and Public Policy, 2022. 52. Hall, K.L., et al., A four-phase model of transdisciplinary team-based research: goals, team processes, and strategies, in Translational behavioral medicine. 2012. p. 415-430. 53. Schultz W, C.C., Lum R, Scenarios: A Hero’s Journey across Turbulent Systems. Journal of Futures Studies, 2012(17(1)): p. 129-140. 54. Locock L, B.A., Drawing straight lines along blurred boundaries: qualitative research, patient and public involvement in medical research, co-production and co-design. Evidence and Policy, 2019. 15: p. 409-422. 55. González-Ricoy I, G.A., Institutions For Future Generations. 2016, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 56. Farr, M., Power dynamics and collaborative mechanisms in co-production and co-design processes. Critical Social Policy, 2018. 38(4): p. 623-644. 57. L. Lécuyer, E.B., J. R. A. Butler, C. Barnaud, S. Calla, B. Locatelli, J. Newig, J. Pettit, D. Pound, F. Quétier, V. Salvatori, Y. Von Korff, J. C. Young, The importance of understanding the multiple dimensions of power in stakeholder participation for effective biodiversity conservation. People and Nature, 2024. 58. Haugaard, M., The four dimensions of power: conflict and democracy. Journal of Political Power, 2021. 14(1): p. 153-175. 59. Russell, B., Power: A New Social Analysis. 1938, London: George Allen & Unwin. 60. Haugaard, M., Power: a ‘family resemblance’concept, in European Journal of Cultural Studies. 2010. p. 419-438. 61. Schiller, C., et al., A framework for stakeholder identification in concept mapping and health research: a novel process and its application to older adult mobility and the built environment. BMC Public Health, 2013. 13: p. 428. 62. Schmeer, K., Stakeholder Analysis Guidelines, in Analysis. 2000. 63. Varvasovszky, Z. and R. Brugha, How to do (or not to do)...: A stakeholder analysis, in Health Policy and Planning. 2000. 64. Brugha, R. and Z. Varvasovszky, Stakeholder analysis: a review., in Health policy and planning. 2000. 65. Mitchell R, A.B., Wood D,, Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. Academy of Management, 1997. 22: p. 853-886. 66. Gregory A, A.J., Midgley G, Hodgson A,, Stakeholder identification and engagement in problem structuring interventions. European Journal of Operational Research, 2020. 283(1): p. 321-340. 67. Goodpastor K, Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1991. 1(1): p. 53-73. 68. Enengel B, M.A., Penker M, Freyer B, Drlik S, Ritter F,, Co-production of knowledge in transdisciplinary doctoral theses on landscape development—An analysis of actor roles and knowledge types in different research phases. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2012. 105(1-2): p. 106-117. 69. Reed, M.B., R; Machen, R;, Pathways to policy impact: a new approach for planning and evidencing research impact. Evidence and Policy, 2018. 14(03): p. 431-458. 70. NIHR. Briefing notes for researchers - public involvement in NHS, health and social care research. 2021 25 11 23]; Available from: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/briefing-notes-for-researchers-public-involvement-in-nhs-health-and-social-care-research/27371. 71. Matthews-Simmons F. What's the difference between a program logic and a theory of change? 2019 25 10 23]; Available from: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/whats-difference-between-program-logic-theory-change-matthew-simmons/. 72. Analytics in Action. Theory of Change vs Logic Model. 2023 25 10 23]; Available from: https://analyticsinaction.co/theory-of-change-vs-logic-model. 73. CERE. Logic Models vs Theories of Change. 2021 25 10 23]; Available from: https://cere.olemiss.edu/logic-models-vs-theories-of-change/#:~:text=The%20main%20distinction%20between%20a,component%20is%20expected%20to%20result. 74. Better Evaluation. Develop theory of change / programme theory. 2023 25 10 23]; Available from: https://www.betterevaluation.org/frameworks-guides/rainbow-framework/define/develop-programme-theory-theory-change. 75. Center for Theory of Change. What is Theory of Change? Setting Standards for Theory of Change 2023 25 10 23]; Available from: https://www.theoryofchange.org/what-is-theory-of-change/. 76. Alliance, N., Environment and climate. 2023. 77. Friel, S., et al., Climate change, noncommunicable diseases, and development: the relationships and common policy opportunities, in Annu Rev Public Health. 2011. p. 133-147. 78. Swinburn, B.A., et al., The Global Syndemic of Obesity, Undernutrition, and Climate Change: The Lancet Commission report, in The Lancet. 2019. 79. Cairney P, Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: How Do We Combine the Insights of Multiple Theories in Public Policy Studies? Policy Studies Journal, 2013. 41(1): p. 1-21. 80. Ison R, Methodological challenges of trans-disciplinary research: some systemic reflections. Natures Sciences Sociétés, 2008. 81. Reed, M., Research Impact Handbook. Fast Track Impact. 2016.