For full text search please use the '?' prefix. e.g. ? Onboarding

More-than-Human Participation (Review)

This note prepares materials for a review of more-than-human participation.

Cf.

ToDo

  • Define authorship and participation principles. Review existing patterns and document them for integration into the methods section and dissemination to potential collaborators.
  • Compile a longlist of potential publication venues, considering article length, discipline, audience, article format, and precedent articles. Narrow to a shortlist and select the target venue.
  • Review existing articles that address 'important future questions' to identify effective approaches. Draft a list of guiding principles and circulate for discussion.
  • Define the consultation method, including the initial synopsis and questions, limited trial, final questionnaire, response analysis methods, and potential additional interviews. Plan to apply for human ethics approval. Document the strategy for author and respondent enrolment for inclusion in the publication.

Definitions

Agents

Define who can participate and how. This includes human and nonhuman, living and nonliving, individual and collective agents.

Design

Frame design as a key discipline and a site for moving from critique to action.

Escobar, Arturo. “Autonomous Design and the Emergent Transnational Critical Design Studies Field.” Strategic Design Research Journal 11, no. 2 (2018): 139–46. https://doi.org/10/ggnz7m.

Escobar, Arturo. “Designing as a Futural Praxis for the Healing of the Web of Life.” In Design in Crisis: New Worlds, Philosophies and Practices, edited by Tony Fry and Adam Nocek, 25–42. Oxford: Taylor & Francis, 2020.

Escobar, Arturo. “Reframing Civilization(s): From Critique to Transitions.” ARQ (Santiago), no. 111 (2022): 24–41. https://doi.org/10/g84hrv.

Participation

Decisions

More-than-human participation

  • environmental sustainability and justice
  • relational and agential characteristics of technical objects

Aspirations

  • evidence driven
  • real-world impact
  • justice
  • thriving

Inclusions and Exclusions

Roudavski, Stanislav. “The Ladder of More-than-Human Participation: A Framework for Inclusive Design.” Cultural Science 14, no. 1 (2024): 110–19. https://doi.org/10/g8nn27.

Cf. Ladder

Refer to the ladder and only include the rungs with the direct path towards commoning. Include approaches that aim to empower the decision-making by nonhuman beings. Mention and briefly discuss but exclude artistic, evocative, metaphorical, critical and other approaches that fail to produce impact or do not empower nonhuman participants.

  • evidence-based approaches
  • practice and action
  • ethical, justice-related and political considerations

Mention but exclude for the purposes of this review:

  • nonliving things as agents, unless relevant in terms of distributed hybrid systems such as ecosystems
  • Indigenous and traditional knowledge
  • French and continental philosophy
  • metaphorical and symbolic determinations such as social relationships between inanimate objects, etc.

Rungs of the Ladder as a Possible Framework

Benefits

  • fairness
  • access to nonhuman expertise and innovation
  • sustainability, biodiversity, health, resilience

Challenges

Provide examples, provide quantitative or qualitative evidence of impact.

  • communication barriers between disparate human groups and nonhuman agents at organism, holobiont, and collective levels
  • disparate and sometimes incompatible worldviews and epistemologies
  • lack of shared knowledge bases and challenges in knowledge accrual
  • ongoing debates in the scientific community regarding mechanisms of evolution, development, health, and wellbeing
  • lack of knowledge about living systems at multiple levels
  • steep learning curves and other barriers that restrict interdisciplinary collaboration, such as difficulties in making ecological knowledge accessible to designers and engineers
  • lack of shared institutional structures, including societies, industrial bodies, standards, and educational certifications
  • ethical challenges without satisfactory resolutions
  • power dynamics and political struggles, including perceived or actual loss of cultural or monetary capital
  • cultural acceptance of alternative lifestyles, such as the need to redefine human aesthetic or hygiene expectations
  • biases that are difficult or impossible to avoid without systematic enforcement
  • high costs associated with participatory approaches
  • greater time required for participatory approaches
  • participatory design's tendency to avoid risky, unusual, or radical solutions
  • difficulty in collecting on-demand data
  • difficulty in analysing and interpreting data
  • lack of tooling
  • the need for quantitative data in design and engineering, which often differs in kind, resolution, or continuity from data collected by ecologists and biologists
  • lack of examples, comparative analyses, training, common discussion forums
  • efficiency concerns regarding carbon emissions, costs, and effort invested into location- or time-bound projects
  • risk and benefit relationships
  • inherent unpredictability of complex systems
  • difficulty and problematic implications of scaling up local solutions

Practical examples

Create a grouping or a table of examples of more-than-human participation in design.

  • by place
  • by agents
  • by degree of participation
  • by impact

Approaches and Methods of More-than-Human Participatory Design

List defined and justified research methods with specific advantages and limitations. This is likely a gap, a possibility to cross-map existing methods and key questions.

  • personas
  • decentring
  • speculative design
  • hypotheticals
  • victim impact statements

Possible Review Methods

Approaches

Cf. Review

  • Scoping or narrative review. Options: use established dimensions or allow topics/themes to emerge from literature.
  • Qualitative mapping
  • Key unanswered questions, see Unanswered Questions, and agenda-type articles
  • Manifesto Manifesto

Venues for Publication

  • Nature Reviews Biodiversity, Reviews are approximately 6000 words long and typically include 5–7 display items (figures, tables or boxes). As a guideline, Reviews include up to 150 references; citations should be selective. Perspectives are intended to provide a forum for authors to discuss models, theories and ideas from a personal viewpoint. They are more forward looking and/or speculative than Reviews and may take a narrower field of view. They may be opinionated but should remain balanced and are intended to stimulate discussion and new approaches. Perspectives are approximately 5000 words long and may include up to 5 display items (figures, tables or boxes). As a guideline, Perspectives include approximately 100 references; citations should be selective. A Roadmap is a forward-looking outline of the scientific and technical challenges and opportunities in a certain field or for a specific big project. Roadmaps provide a sense of direction and set out the necessary steps that probably need to be achieved. They may also list a set of open questions. Roadmaps are authored by panels of experts. Roadmaps are approximately 6000 words long and may include up to 7 display items (figures, tables or boxes). As a guideline, Roadmaps include up to 150 references.
  • Ecology & Society, Synthesis article. Synthesis articles bring different bodies of knowledge together in novel ways. They are not reviews. They are comprehensive and may integrate elements that historically have been considered separately, in order to suggest new opportunities for theory, policy, and/or practice. They may propose new research frameworks, but they should be based on bringing together or applying concepts in a novel way, and/or have a strong empirical basis or applicability. These papers should not exceed 7000 words maximum in length.
  • People and Nature, Synthesis and review article type. 8000 words including references.
  • Nature, Insights, reviews and perspectives article types. Review and perspectives articles are usually commissioned but one can approach.

Precedents and Fields

  • biology, ecology, conservation biology, environmental science, animal behaviour, ethology, zoosemiotics, biosemiotics, ecosemiotics
  • HIC, animal-computer interaction
  • geography, more-than-human geography, animal geography
  • more-than-human anthropology, multispecies ethnography
  • new materialism, posthumanism, object-oriented ontology
  • Indigenous knowledge, Indigenous design
  • design, participatory design, co-design, more-than-human, interspecies, ecocentric, animal-aided design, design for biodiversity, net-positive design
  • animal studies, critical animal studies
  • law and politics, animal rights, animal welfare, environmental law, environmental justice, political ecology

The understanding of the need to move beyond human-centred design.

Coulton, Paul, and Joseph Galen Lindley. “More-Than Human Centred Design: Considering Other Things.” The Design Journal 22, no. 4 (2019): 463–81. https://doi.org/10/ggkjk4.

Giaccardi, Elisa, and Johan Redström. “Technology and More-Than-Human Design.” Design Issues 36, no. 4 (2020): 33–44. https://doi.org/10/gh6rvm.

References

Agenda and Research Questions

Sheikh, Hira, Peta Mitchell, and Marcus Foth. “More-Than-Human Smart Urban Governance: A Research Agenda.” Digital Geography and Society 4 (2023): 100045. https://doi.org/10/gscb6b.

Existing Reviews on the Topic (broadly taken)

Reviews

Coghlan, Simon, and Adam P. A. Cardilini. “A Critical Review of the Compassionate Conservation Debate.” Conservation Biology 36, no. 1 (2022): e13760. https://doi.org/10/gj97xb.

Coskun, Aykut, Nazli Cila, Iohanna Nicenboim, Christopher Frauenberger, Ron Wakkary, Marc Hassenzahl, Clara Mancini, Elisa Giaccardi, and Laura Forlano. “More-Than-Human Concepts, Methodologies, and Practices in HCI.” In Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–5. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2022. https://doi.org/10/g8wm4d.

Eriksson, Eva, Daisy Yoo, Tilde Bekker, and Elisabet M. Nilsson. “More-than-Human Perspectives in Human-Computer Interaction Research: A Scoping Review.” In Proceedings of the 13th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 1–18. NordiCHI ’24. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2024. https://doi.org/10/g8kv92.

Hernandez-Santin, Cristina, Marco Amati, Sarah Bekessy, and Cheryl Desha. “A Review of Existing Ecological Design Frameworks Enabling Biodiversity Inclusive Design.” Urban Science 6, no. 4 (2022): 95. https://doi.org/10/jsxw.

Humphrey, Jacinta E., Matthew J. Selinske, Georgia E. Garrard, Sophus O. S. E. zu Ermgassen, Prue F. E. Addison, Bethany M. Kiss, Michael Burgass, et al. “How Do We Achieve Nature Positive? A Vision and Targets for the UK Residential and Commercial Development Sector.” Urban Sustainability 5, no. 1 (2025): 1–11. https://doi.org/10/g9ggm3.

Kowarik, Ingo, Leonie K. Fischer, Dagmar Haase, Nadja Kabisch, Fritz Kleinschroth, Cecil Konijnendijk, Tanja M. Straka, and Christina von Haaren. “Promoting Urban Biodiversity for the Benefit of People and Nature.” Nature Reviews Biodiversity, 2025, 1–19. https://doi.org/10/g9bmm7.

Matthews, Ben, Skye Doherty, Jane Johnston, and Marcus Foth. “The Publics of Design: Challenges for Design Research and Practice.” Design Studies 80 (2022): 101106. https://doi.org/10/g8r8zk.

Mehring, Marion, Anna S. Brietzke, Janina Kleemann, Stefan Knauß, Christian Poßer, Vera Schreiner, Heidi Wittmer, et al. “Multiple Ways to Bend the Curve of Biodiversity Loss: An Analytical Framework to Support Transformative Change.” People and Nature 6, no. 5 (2024): 1945–59. https://doi.org/10/g9f8gs.

Ogden, Laura A., Billy Hall, and Kimiko Tanita. “Animals, Plants, People, and Things: A Review of Multispecies Ethnography.” Environment and Society 4, no. 1 (2013): 5–24. https://doi.org/10/gh7b3k.

Prebble, Sarah, Jessica McLean, and Donna Houston. “Smart Urban Forests: An Overview of More-Than-Human and More-Than-Real Urban Forest Management in Australian Cities.” Digital Geography and Society 2 (2021): 100013. https://doi.org/10/gj4mrj.

Ribeiro, Paulo Jorge Gomes, and Luís António Pena Jardim Gonçalves. “Urban Resilience: A Conceptual Framework.” Sustainable Cities and Society 50 (2019): 101625. https://doi.org/10/ghmfms.

Shachat, Madeleine Eve. “Nonhumans as Stakeholders: A Literature Review.” Master Thesis, Jyväskylä University, 2024.

Syal, Sita M., and Julia Kramer. “Design and Justice: A Scoping Review in Engineering Design.” Journal of Mechanical Design 147, no. 051404 (2024). https://doi.org/10/g84hrt.

Vacanti, Annapaola, Francesco Burlando, Isabella Nevoso, and Massimo Menichinelli. “The More-Than-Human Trend in Design Research: A Literature Review.” In Disrupting Geographies in the Design World: Proceedings of the 8th International Forum of Design as a Process, edited by Erik Ciravenga, Elena Formia, Valentina Giafrate, Andreas Sicklinger, and Michele Zannoni, 80–89. Bologna: Università di Bologna, 2023. https://doi.org/10/g8r87w.

Consider approaches for capturing the growth of impact on policy, as in the research 'about' policy, for example through network maps.

Oancea, Alis, Teresa Florez Petour, and Jeanette Atkinson. “Qualitative Network Analysis Tools for the Configurative Articulation of Cultural Value and Impact from Research.” Research Evaluation 26, no. 4 (2017): 302–15. https://doi.org/10/gch5qj.

Evidence and Gap Mapping

James, Katy L., Nicola P. Randall, and Neal R. Haddaway. “A Methodology for Systematic Mapping in Environmental Sciences.” Environmental Evidence 5, no. 1 (2016): 7. https://doi.org/10/ghh46n.

Akama, Yoko, Ann Light, and Takahito Kamihira. “Expanding Participation to Design with More-Than-Human Concerns.” In Proceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference 2020 - Participation(s) Otherwise, 1–11. PDC ’20. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2020. https://doi.org/10/gjzcwz.

Grobman, Yasha J., Wolfgang Weisser, Assaf Shwartz, Ferdinand Ludwig, Roy Kozlovsky, Avigail Ferdman, Katia Perini, et al. “Architectural Multispecies Building Design: Concepts, Challenges, and Design Process.” Sustainability 15, no. 21 (2023): 15480. https://doi.org/10/gv4c3f.

Clarke, Rachel, Sara Heitlinger, Ann Light, Laura Forlano, Marcus Foth, and Carl DiSalvo. “More-Than-Human Participation: Design for Sustainable Smart City Futures.” Interactions 26, no. 3 (2019): 60–63. https://doi.org/10/gf35h5.

Introduction to a special issue on more-than-human design:

Giaccardi, Elisa, Johan Redström, and Iohanna Nicenboim. “The Making(s) of More-Than-Human Design: Introduction to the Special Issue on More-Than-Human Design and HCI.” Human–Computer Interaction 40, no. 1–4 (2025): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2024.2353357.

Haldrup, Michael, Kristine Samson, and Thomas Laurien. “Designing for Multispecies Commons: Ecologies and Collaborations in Participatory Design.” In Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference 2022, edited by Vasilis Vlachokyriakos, Joyce Yee, Christopher Frauenberger, Melisa Duque Hurtado, Nicolai Hansen, Angelika Strohmayer, Izak Van Zyl, et al., 2:14–19. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2022. https://doi.org/10/gq6sfx.

Heitlinger, Sara, Marcus Foth, and Rachel Clarke, eds. Designing More-than-Human Smart Cities: Beyond Sustainability, Towards Cohabitation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2024.

Heitlinger, Sara, Ann Light, Yoko Akama, Kristina Lindström, and Åsa Ståhl. “More-Than-Human Participatory Design.” In Routledge International Handbook of Contemporary Participatory Design, edited by Rachel Charlotte Smith, Daria Loi, Heike Winschiers-Theophilus, Liesbeth Huybrechts, and Jesper Simonsen, 79–110. London: Routledge, 2025.

Westerlaken, Michelle, Jennifer Gabrys, Danilo Urzedo, and Max Ritts. “Unsettling Participation by Foregrounding More-Than-Human Relations in Digital Forests.” Environmental Humanities, 2022. https://doi.org/10/gqzpm2.

Hupkes, Tisha, and Anders Hedman. “Shifting Towards Non-Anthropocentrism: In Dialogue with Speculative Design Futures.” Futures 140 (2022): 102950. https://doi.org/10/gqbkmq.

Rice, Louis. “Nonhumans in Participatory Design.” CoDesign 14, no. 3 (2018): 238–57. https://doi.org/10/gfvpfx.

Romani, Alessia, Francesca Casnati, and Alessandro Ianniello. “Codesign with More-Than-Humans: Toward a Meta Co-Design Tool for Human-Non-Human Collaborations.” European Journal of Futures Research 10, no. 1 (2022): 17. https://doi.org/10/gqvdsm.

Veselova, Emīlija, and İdil Gaziulusoy. “Bioinclusive Collaborative and Participatory Design: A Conceptual Framework and a Research Agenda.” Design and Culture, 2022, 1–35. https://doi.org/10/gn8psk.

Methodological Plan for This Review

Long-Term Strategy

  • Write an initial review.
  • Promote at events, support with a website, visuals, video.
  • Consider extending into a book.
  • Consider integrating into a reader, handbook, or a textbook.

Participants/Respondents

  • Academic researchers
  • Practitioners
  • Activists
  • Indigenous knowledge holders
  • Nonhuman living beings (how? e.g., by looking at the mappings of the existing biases such as in Human Bias, by asking their representatives, legal, traditional or otherwise, asking those who campaign on their behalf, their more-than-human family members, etc.?)

Methodological goals

  • Capture both mainstream and outlier perspectives for comprehensive coverage.
  • Reduce groupthink by promoting independent, critical input.
  • Define consensus areas clearly.
  • Identify and clarify contested viewpoints.
  • Surface key questions and priorities for future research and action.

Principle Steps

  1. Establish the target journal, audience, and purpose of the review. Output: a written brief for potential co-authors and respondents, including the schedule and the protocol for working with the authors/respondents.
  2. Compile initial lists of authors, respondents, and a preliminary bibliography. Output: table of participants, a bibliography with initial groupings.
  3. Define the conceptual framework, specifying ontology, epistemology, ethics, methods, limitations, and key terms (Future, Innovation, transition, impact). Define the 'objectives, audience, and message', an 'approach', an 'impact plan'. Output: written plan of action.
  4. Approach journal editors with a proposal. Output: a journal selected.
  5. Review existing literature and practice (consider bibliometric and scientometric analysis: 2 use citation patterns to reveal how different disciplines are contributing to the field to identify key researchers, influential papers, and emerging trends; challenge: this will not capture design practice and activism). Define clear search principles, including relevant keywords, key terms, and associated disciplines. Develop comprehensive inclusion and exclusion criteria to guide the literature selection process. Compile a list of appropriate databases and sources to ensure broad and systematic coverage of the field. Output: a) a populated ladder with examples of more-than-human participation in design; b) a visual mapping of the biological, technological, and social context.
  6. Produce an initial outline of the key structure and describe the methods. Output: methods section.
  7. Aggregate the work so far into an outline. Output: article outline V1.
  8. Obtain written/oral feedback from the initial author group and amend the outline as needed. Output: outline V2.
  9. Finalise the distribution and invitation list. Output: final participant list.
  10. Apply for human ethics approval if required. Output: ethics application.
  11. Invite authors and participants.
  12. Use the 'ladder' 1 as a provocation to invite respondents and co-authors to identify significant unanswered questions, challenges, and promising future directions. Extend Questionnaire Draft to allow critique of the preliminary mapping and participation in generative exercises that support or expand proposed concepts.
  13. Option: Use the Delphi method to organise the stages of responses. Alternatives or integrated: foresight analysis (scenario planning, trend analysis, and horizon scanning). Output: a system of online questionaries, interviews, or workshops.
  14. Option: Commission field specialists to curate sections of the review, curating literature and 'key questions'.
  15. Create a comparative mapping of the current and desired states of more-than-human participation, based on participant feedback. Update or rebuild the ladder as necessary to clarify gaps in knowledge and practice.
  16. Define key research actions required to address these gaps. Assess the likelihood of bridging them in the near future and identify necessary collaborations.
  17. Outline the potential benefits of the proposed research, such as correcting anthropocentric biases, improving health and wellbeing, fostering fairer political systems, or increasing impact.
  18. Specify the timeframe or expected cycle for revising the analysis.

Questionnaire Draft

Aim to capture the current landscape and future directions.

Allow respondents to vote for the respondent-specified answers or provide their own.

  1. Academic background

    • What is your training?
    • Who are your key audiences?

  2. Ethical and strategic objectives

    • What are the long-term objectives of this field?
    • What ethical positions guide research in this area?

  3. State-of-the-art

    • What are the foundational concepts of this field?
    • How has the field evolved in recent years?

  4. Key focus areas and research questions

    • What are the critical unanswered questions in this field?
    • What emerging trends could shape the future of the field?
    • What do you anticipate will be the next major breakthrough?

  5. Unique contributions

    • In what ways does this field offer insights distinct from other research areas?

  6. Challenges, approaches, and methods

    • What new methodologies or technologies are being adopted?
    • How are these innovations transforming research practices?

  7. Impact and applications

    • What are the potential applications of research in this field?
    • How is this research being translated into practice or policy?

Footnotes

  1. McCauley, Darren, Alberto Quintavalla, Kostina Prifti, Constanze Binder, Felicia Broddén, and Hannah van den Brink. “Sustainability Justice: A Systematic Review of Emergent Trends and Themes.” Sustainability Science 19, no. 6 (2024): 2085–99. https://doi.org/10/g9g7k4.˄

  2. Roudavski, Stanislav. “The Ladder of More-than-Human Participation: A Framework for Inclusive Design.” Cultural Science 14, no. 1 (2024): 110–19. https://doi.org/10/g8nn27.˄

Backlinks