Transformative Urban Resilience and Collaborative Participation in Public Spaces: A Systematic Review of Theoretical and Methodological Insights

Abstract

Urban resilience has emerged as a critical paradigm for addressing the intertwined challenges of climate change, rapid urbanization, and social inequality, positioning green public spaces as catalysts for social, ecological, and institutional transformation. This article presents a systematic review conducted under the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, examining how collaborative and community participation influenced transformative urban resilience in green public spaces between 2021 and 2025. A total of 6179 records were initially identified across ScienceDirect and MDPI (last search: July 2025), of which 26 empirical studies met the inclusion criteria (peer-reviewed, empirical, published 2021–2025). Methodological rigor was strengthened through the application of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT, 2018) and confidence in qualitative evidence was assessed using the GRADE-CERQual approach, enhancing transparency and reliability. Data extraction and synthesis followed a theoretical-methodological coding framework, allowing for the comparison of participatory strategies, typologies of green spaces, resilience dimensions, and applied instruments. The results show that multi-actor co-management, co-design, and community self-organization are the most frequent participatory strategies, while urban green infrastructure, pocket parks, and urban gardens constitute the predominant spatial contexts. Socio-ecological and social-participatory resilience emerged as dominant theoretical perspectives, with qualitative and mixed-methods designs prevailing across studies. Evidence synthesis through GRADE-CERQual identified seven key pathways—multi-actor co-management, Nature-based Solutions, community-based actions, social equity, cultural identity, institutional innovation, and planned densification—each contributing differently to resilience dimensions. Overall, the findings highlight that transformative resilience depends on deep, inclusive participatory processes, multi-level governance, and the integration of social, ecological, and cultural dimensions. Despite the heterogeneity of designs and unequal data adequacy, this review confirms that transformative urban resilience is a co-produced process grounded in community action, ecological sustainability, and collaborative governance. Strengthening underexplored areas—technological innovation, cultural resilience, and standardized methodological instruments—is essential for advancing comparative research and practice.

1. Introduction

Rapid urbanization is fundamentally reshaping cities worldwide, bringing new resilience challenges. By 2050, an estimated 68% of the world’s population will live in cities, making urban resilience efforts increasingly critical [1]. This growth often outpaces planning: many fast-growing cities face heightened exposure to natural hazards, infrastructure stress, and socio-economic vulnerabilities. Lima, Peru, exemplifies these challenges. Having urbanized largely through unplanned expansion, Lima faces structural issues such as poverty, social fragmentation, and settlements built in high-risk areas [2]. These vulnerabilities were starkly demonstrated in 2017 when an extreme coastal El Niño event triggered the city’s worst flooding in decades, inundating informal settlements and destroying over 200,000 homes [3]. Such examples underscore the need for more effective approaches to urban resilience in the face of rapid urban change and hazard exposure.

In Latin America—and particularly in metropolitan areas such as Lima—the qualitative and quantitative deficit of green public spaces has exacerbated patterns of territorial fragmentation, social inequality, and environmental vulnerability. These challenges are particularly acute in peripheral and underserved neighborhoods, where informal urban expansion often lacks access to safe, inclusive, and ecologically functional public environments. As highlighted by Peru’s National Housing and Urban Development Policy (PNVU), by 2030, the goal is to ensure equitable access to urban infrastructure and high-quality public space through resilient, participatory, and multisectoral planning strategies [4]. In this context, the concept of transformative urban resilience is especially relevant—not only to absorb and adapt to external shocks, but also as a tool to reconfigure the socio-spatial structures that perpetuate risk and exclusion [5,6]. Adopting this lens implies moving beyond infrastructure-based resilience toward a community-anchored approach that values collective agency, social equity, and environmental justice as cornerstones of long-term urban transformation.

1.1. Concept of Transformative Urban Resilience

One emerging paradigm is transformative urban resilience, which moves beyond incremental adaptation to pursue deep, systemic change in how cities withstand and evolve through adversity. From this perspective, cities are understood as complex socio-ecological systems in constant evolution, where resilience dynamics involve processes of learning, institutional reorganization, and cultural transformation [6,7]. Transformative resilience is characterized by broad, long-term shifts in urban systems and governance, aiming for innovative, forward-looking strategies that address the root causes of risk [8]. In contrast to conventional resilience planning, this approach stresses inclusive, collaborative processes. Scholars highlight the importance of reflexive governance and citizen engagement in driving transformative changes—emphasizing that resilience-building should involve diverse stakeholders through knowledge co-creation, social learning, and empowered participation [8]. In essence, fostering transformative urban resilience means not only improving infrastructure or response capacity, but also incorporating factors such as social capital, community cohesion, and inclusive governance practices, and fundamentally reconfiguring urban development pathways via inclusive, participatory innovation.

1.2. Collaborative Participation and Public Spaces

Within this context, collaborative participation in public spaces has gained recognition as a practical avenue to effectively enhance urban resilience. Public spaces—such as parks, plazas, streets, and community centers—serve as critical nodes of social and ecological infrastructure in cities. Moreover, when designed and managed with community involvement, these spaces can deliver multiple resilience benefits. Participatory, people-centered public space initiatives have been shown to strengthen social cohesion and a sense of community, as residents jointly create and care for their environment [9]. This type of participation is not limited to consultation or involvement in institutional processes; instead, it manifests in everyday practices of co-production of space, self-management of urban resources, and the construction of mutual support networks [10]. Such spaces also contribute to climate and economic resilience by providing ecosystem services (for example, urban green spaces that mitigate heat and flooding) and by supporting local livelihoods and well-being [9]. Furthermore, engaging local stakeholders in the planning and stewardship of public spaces ensures that interventions meet local needs and values while building grassroots capacity to adapt and respond during crises. In short, collaborative public-space participation can activate “bottom-up” resilience, empowering communities to transform underutilized or vulnerable urban areas into assets that enable cities to survive and thrive amid challenges. Social interaction, the construction of community networks, and the generation of social capital are key components in assessing and building adaptive urban environments [11].

It is important to note, however, that “participation” is not a uniform concept across all urban contexts; its practice can differ widely across regions and cultures. Approaches to public participation vary widely around the world, reflecting different governance structures, cultural norms, and power dynamics. In some settings, participation takes the form of formal consultations led by government or planners, whereas in others, it arises from citizen-led movements and informal community action [12]. What constitutes effective collaborative participation in one city may not translate directly to another. Acknowledging these differences is crucial to avoid overgeneralization. For instance, in some Western European and North American cities, citizen participation in public space management is institutionalized through formal mechanisms (such as mandated public consultations or participatory budgeting in urban planning).

By contrast, in many parts of Latin America, Africa, and Asia, the same term may denote more informal, community-led initiatives—for example, grassroots neighborhood associations, social movements or informal settlement communities might self-organize to claim their right to the city. Thus, although participation is a globally used concept, it can entail distinct processes and degrees of influence depending on the local governance context. Recognizing these geographical and cultural nuances is crucial to avoid overgeneralization and ensures that our review remains sensitive to the varied ways communities engage in and co-create public spaces around the world.

1.3. Positioning This Review Within the Existing Literature

Understanding how collaborative participation fosters transformative urban resilience requires acknowledging the deeply context-specific nature of resilience-building. Variations in governance, socio-political structures, and civic culture shape how public engagement in green spaces unfolds across regions. Anchored in this global diversity, the present review addresses a critical knowledge gap: the lack of an integrative synthesis that clarifies how participatory public-space interventions contribute to resilience outcomes such as social cohesion, ecological adaptation, and inclusive governance. By identifying cross-regional patterns, participatory strategies, and methodological innovations, this study develops a novel framework that advances the conceptualization of resilience as a co-produced, spatially grounded process—offering timely insights for both academic and applied urban agendas.

Several recent reviews have addressed aspects of urban resilience, such as its multidimensional nature [13], its sociological underpinnings in green infrastructure [14], or its evolution in academic discourse [15,16]. Others have focused on nature-based solutions (NbSs), particularly in the Global South [17], or explored NbSs through service design [18], environmental governance [19], and ecosystem service linkages [20].

Despite their value, none of these reviews systematically examine how collaborative participation in green public spaces contributes to transformative urban resilience across multiple geographic and cultural contexts. This review addresses that gap by integrating empirical cases with their theoretical frameworks, methodological tools, participatory typologies, and resilience outcomes. Compared to previous reviews, this study offers: A recent temporal range (2021–2025), a focus on participatory strategies linked to public-space typologies, and an integrative framework that synthesizes conceptual, empirical, and methodological contributions.

1.4. Objectives and Research Questions

In light of these considerations, this systematic review aims to generate new insights into how collaborative participation in public spaces enhances transformative urban resilience. Beyond merely synthesizing recent studies, this review seeks to:

˗

Identify the participatory strategies and green public-space interventions most commonly employed in recent empirical research;

˗

Examine how these strategies contribute to resilience outcomes;

˗

Analyze the theoretical and methodological approaches—including resilience dimensions, indicators, and instruments—used to evaluate these initiatives;

˗

And synthesize cross-regional trends and innovations into an integrative framework that clarifies the pathways through which participatory interventions drive structural transformation in urban contexts.

To ensure methodological transparency and alignment with PRISMA 2020 [21] and Open Science Framework [22] standards, this review was guided by the following two research questions:

(1)

What types of collaborative participation strategies and green public-space interventions are most common in recent empirical studies, and how do these initiatives relate to transformative urban resilience outcomes across diverse urban contexts?

(2)

What theoretical perspectives and research methods—including resilience dimensions, indicators, and data collection instruments—characterize recent studies on participatory public-space initiatives, and how can these insights be synthesized into an integrative framework to guide future research and practice?

These questions shape the structure of the results and discussion sections, which first explore typological and territorial patterns of participatory strategies and green interventions, then analyze conceptual and methodological approaches, and finally synthesize key findings into an integrative framework for transformative resilience.

2. Materials and Methods

The selection and extraction of data for this research adopted a systematic literature review methodology following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) [21], with the aim of identifying empirical studies that examine the influence of social or collaborative participation on transformative urban resilience, applied to urban public green spaces, with an emphasis on parks. The choice of parks as study sites stemmed, firstly, from the authors’ particular interest in studying this more conventional type of green public space, with the aim of informing further, more specialized research; and secondly, from their consolidation as structuring centers of urban space that integrate recreational, social, environmental and economic functions [9,23]; so, their study allows for addressing multiple dimensions of urban well-being and the integral sustainability of the city [13,23].

The review process was carried out by the five authors between 9 June 2025 and 9 July 2025, covering articles published during the period 2021–2025. To improve the methodological rigor of this systematic review, incorporated two quality assessment tools:

• The Mixed Methods Assessment Tool (MMAT, 2018 version): Each article was reviewed independently and scored accordingly, giving greater weight to findings from the highest-rated studies.
• The GRADE-CERQual criteria: Used to assess confidence in the main qualitative findings of this review.

Together, these tools helped reduce the risk of bias. All steps were documented in detail, following the PRISMA 2020 checklist (Table S2) to ensure transparency and reproducibility. The authors’ roles and the resolution of discrepancies can be described as follows:

• Authors’ roles:
  The range, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and clear research questions were defined according to PRISMA guidelines. Each author participated in the selection of studies or data, which involved collaborative work that enhanced methodological rigor. Relevant data were extracted systematically and transparently. Each article was reviewed independently and assigned a corresponding score. The quality of the studies was assessed independently by two reviewers.
• Discrepancy resolution:
  When discrepancies arose in the selection or extraction process, these were resolved through direct discussion or by involving a third reviewer to mediate and make the final decision, ensuring consensus.

2.1. Search Strategy

Based on the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a systematic search strategy was defined, integrating specific combinations of keywords relevant to the study objective. The search was carried out between 9 June 2025 and 9 July 2025, in two high-impact academic databases: ScienceDirect and MDPI, both widely recognized in the social and environmental sciences. They were chosen as academic databases over others due to the institutional access the authors had due to their university affiliation, and because of their good reputation in academia due to their transparency and reliability in scientific research [24,25] (

Table 1. Sequence of applied filters and selection criteria.

Database	1. Identification	Count	2. Screening						3. Eligibility	4. Included
			1st Filter	2nd Filter	3rd Filter	4th Filter	5th Filter	6th Filter
Science Direct	“community participation”, “socioecologic resilience”, “boulevard”	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Science Direct	“community participation”, “socioecologic resilience”	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Science Direct	“community participation”, “boulevard”	157	51	35	27	11	6	4	3	2
Science Direct	“socioecologic resilience”, “boulevard”	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
MDPI	“community participation”, “socioecologic resilience”, “boulevard”	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
MDPI	“community participation”, “socioecologic resilience”	10	7	7	7	7	7	0	0	0
MDPI	“community participation”, “boulevard”	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0
MDPI	“socioecologic resilience”, “boulevard”	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Science Direct	“social participation”, “resilience”, “green spaces”	167	137	99	70	33	21	3	2	2
Science Direct	“collaboration”, “urban resilience”, “green spaces”	567	567	335	235	127	78	4	5	3
Science Direct	“social participation”, “resilience”, “public space”	165	126	99	76	41	22	2	2	1
MDPI	“social participation”, “resilience”, “green spaces”	16	14	12	12	11	11	7	5	4
MDPI	“collaboration”, “urban resilience”, “green spaces”	12	11	8	8	8	8	4	4	3
MDPI	“social participation”, “resilience”, “public space”	13	10	8	8	8	8	5	2	2
Science Direct	“urban resilience”, “public spaces”, “collaborative participation”	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0
Science Direct	“urban resilience”, “public spaces”	669	526	400	284	144	97	3	4	3
Science Direct	“urban resilience”, “collaborative participation”	6	5	5	3	1	1	0	0	0
Science Direct	“publics spaces”, “collaborative participation”	26	16	13	11	7	3	0	0	0
MDPI	“urban resilience”, “public spaces”, “collaborative participation”	5	3	2	2	2	2	2	2	1
MDPI	“urban resilience”, “public spaces”	152	121	95	94	94	94	0	0	0
MDPI	“public spaces”, “collaborative participation”	40	28	26	23	23	23	0	0	0
MDPI	“urban resilience”, “collaborative participation”	22	16	12	12	12	12	0	0	0
Science Direct	“collaboration”, “urban resilience”, “sustainable spaces”	0	5	4	2	1	0	0	0	0
Science Direct	“collaboration”, “urban resilience”	1440	1105	783	561	272	102	2	2	2
Science Direct	“collaboration”, “sustainable spaces”	275	167	110	41	18	12	1	1	1
MDPI	“collaboration”, “urban resilience”, “sustainable spaces”	24	23	17	17	17	17	0	0	0
MDPI	“collaboration”, “urban Resilience”	157	131	96	93	93	80	0	0	0
MDPI	“collaboration”, “sustainable spaces”	270	215	150	143	143	143	0	0	0
Science Direct	“civic engagement”, “community resilience”, “parks”	93	64	52	45	14	9	0	0	0
Science Direct	“civic engagement”, “community resilience”	211	137	107	87	32	22	4	0	0
Science Direct	“civic engagement”, “parks”	1660	693	575	432	170	127	15	1	1
MDPI	“civic engagement”, “community resilience”, “parks”	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
MDPI	“civic engagement”, “community resilience”	16	14	9	8	8	8	1	0	0
MDPI	“civic engagement”, “parks”	3	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Summations		6179	4195	3062	2304	1300	916	59	34	26

Identification—Keywords. Screening—1st filter: Period (2021–2025); 2nd filter: Article type (Research Articles only); 3rd filter: Subject areas (Social Sciences and Environmental Science); 4th filter: Access (Open access and Open archive); 5th filter: Journal subscription (Institutional subscription access via URP for non-open articles); 6th filter: Suitability based on title and abstract screening. Count (#) refers to the number of articles retained after each filter. Eligibility—Inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included—Articles meeting all inclusion criteria and passing full-text screening (in-depth reading). Final result: N = articles systematically reviewed.

, Figure 1). However, we acknowledge that the exclusive use of these two databases may limit the comprehensiveness of this review, as some relevant studies indexed in other repositories could have been excluded.

A total of 34 search strategies were implemented, combining terms through Boolean operators and quotation marks for exact searches (Table S1). These combinations included key concepts such as:

• Community participation—terms such as “community participation”, “social participation”, “civic engagement”.
• Urban or socio-ecological resilience—terms such as “urban resilience”, “socioecologic(al) resilience”, “community resilience”.
• Green or sustainable public spaces—terms such as “green spaces”, “public space(s)”, “parks”, “boulevard”, “sustainable spaces”.
• Collaborative approaches and collective participation—terms such as “collaboration”, “collaborative participation”.

All searches were restricted to articles published between 2021 and 2025, considering only original research articles.

The initial dataset yielded 6179 records (

Table 2. Selected scientific articles.

Code	Authors	Title of Publication
A1	Chilaule, R. & Mottelson, J., et al. [26]	Informal infrastructure provision: Self-organized street paving in Maputo, Mozambique
A2	Alméstar, M. & Romero-Muñoz, S. [27]	(Re)designing the Rules: Collaborative Planning and Institutional Innovation in Schoolyard Transformations in Madrid
A3	Fernandez-Salido, N., et al. [28]	Cultivating Bonds: On Urban Allotment Gardens and Their Relationship with Social Capital
A4	Mitić, A., et al. [29]	Multi-Level Perspective on Sustainability Transition towards Nature-Based Solutions and Co-Creation in Urban Planning of Belgrade, Serbia
A5	Aristyowati A., et al. [30]	An investigation of socio-spatial equality in blue-green space at the Setu Babakan Area, Jakarta
A6	Bolleter, J., et al. [31]	Density my way: Community attitudes to neighbourhood densification scenarios
A7	Lahoti, S., et al. [32]	Exploring the Factors Shaping Urban Greenspace Interactions: A Case Study of Nagpur, India
A8	Lara, A. & Del Moral, L. [33]	Nature-Based Solutions to Hydro-Climatic Risks: Barriers and Triggers for Their Implementation in Seville (Spain)
A9	Ricart, S., et al. [34]	The Social, Political, and Environmental Dimensions in Designing Urban Public Space from a Water Management Perspective: Testing European Experiences
A10	Rosso, F., et al. [35]	Tactical urban pocket parks (TUPPs) for subjective and objective multi-domain comfort enhancement
A11	Zhang, J., et al. [36]	From Health Risks to Environmental Actions: Research on the Pathway of Guiding Citizens to Participate in Pocket-Park Governance
A12	Valle, P., et al. [37]	The influence of the urban model on civic involvement and public time. A study applied to the commuting population of the Greater Metropolitan Area of San José, Costa Rica
A13	Wood, et al. [38]	Employing citizen science to enhance active and healthy ageing in urban environments
A14	Adlakha, D., et al. [39]	Designing Age-Friendly Communities: Exploring Qualitative Perspectives on Urban Green Spaces and Ageing in Two Indian Megacities
A15	Vieira, T.A. & Panagopoulos, T. [40]	Urban agriculture in Brazil: Possibilities and challenges for Santarém, eastern Amazonia
A16	Rui, J. [41]	Green disparities, happiness elusive: Decoding the spatial mismatch between green equity and the happiness from vulnerable perspectives
A17	Aydin, N.Y., et al. [23]	Rebuilding Antakya: Cultivating urban resilience through cultural identity and education for post-disaster reconstruction in Turkey
A18	Cambra-Fierro, J., et al. [42]	Managing public-private partnerships for urban design and regeneration: Lessons learned from the Hermitage Museum Barcelona odyssey
A19	Herreros-Cantis et al. [43]	Co-producing research and data visualization for environmental justice advocacy in climate change adaptation: The Milwaukee Flood-Health Vulnerability Assessment
A20	Tapia, F., et al. [20]	From design to action: Service design tools for enhancing collaboration in nature-based solutions implementation
A21	Sánchez-Almodóvar, E., et al. [44]	Adaptation Strategies for Flooding Risk from Rainfall Events in Southeast Spain: Case Studies from the Bajo Segura, Alicante
A22	Montero-Gutiérrez, P., et al. [45]	Improving urban resilience and habitability by an effective regeneration of the streets: A comprehensive approach step-by-step validated in a real case
A23	Sánchez-Almodóvar, E., et al. [46]	Floods and Adaptation to Climate Change in Tourist Areas: Management Experiences on the Coast of the Province of Alicante (Spain)
A24	Suárez, M., et al. [47]	Urban resilience through green infrastructure: A framework for policy analysis applied to Madrid, Spain
A25	Działek, J., et al. [48]	(Re)greening transition of academic green spaces as a response to social and environmental challenges: The role of bottom-up initiatives
A26	Fanfani, D., et al. [49]	Assessing the Public Peri-Urban Agricultural Park as a Tool for the Sustainable Planning of Peri-Urban Areas: The Case Study of Prato

and Figure 2), which were subjected to six progressive filters: (1) Publication period, (2) Article type, (3) Relevant subject areas (social sciences and environmental sciences), (4) Open access, (5) Availability through institutional access, (6) Thematic suitability verified through title and abstract screening. Finally, predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Section 2.2.1 and Section 2.2.2) were applied, resulting in 26 articles selected for in-depth analysis.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

To delimit the corpus of analysis for this systematic review, inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined based on thematic relevance, methodological approach, territorial context, and the scientific quality of the publications. These criteria ensured the relevance, validity, and comparability of the selected studies in relation to the research objective, which focuses on understanding how social or collaborative participation influences urban resilience in green public spaces.

2.2.1. Inclusion Criteria

Articles were considered eligible only if they met the following requirements:

• Presented empirical studies (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods), i.e., research based on evidence derived from fieldwork, direct observation, surveys, interviews, spatial analysis, or documented case studies.
• Explicitly analyzed the influence of social or collaborative participation on urban resilience, either as the central object of study or as a key variable in the design, management, or evaluation of urban interventions in green public spaces.
• Focused on green public spaces in urban contexts [50], primarily urban public parks, but also considers other categories such as floodable parks, community gardens, agro-urban parks, ecological corridors, vegetated squares, nature-based solutions (NbSs), urban green infrastructure, cultural park, pocket park, academic green spaces (university campus), urban gardens, green schoolyards, public terraces, green coverage. This inclusion of other types of spaces is key to obtaining a more comprehensive view of urban green infrastructure and capturing all the functions and benefits that vegetation and green space provide in the city.
• Were conducted in intermediate or large cities, within consolidated or expanding urban contexts, explicitly excluding rural environments or diffuse urban fringes that do not have a notable urban consolidation.

2.2.2. Exclusion Criteria

Studies were excluded from this review if they presented one or more of the following characteristics:

• Theoretical or conceptual works without concrete empirical application, such as reviews, essays, or analytical frameworks without a case study.
• Focused on natural or rural non-urban spaces, such as nature reserves, rural forests, or protected areas outside the urban system.
• Addressed participation solely in terms of consultation or information, without evidence of co-management, co-responsibility, or genuine collaborative governance.
• Were duplicate articles or articles that do not present original contributions.
• Were articles that have not submitted a formal peer-review process to ensure their validity and academic quality.
• Editorials, opinion pieces, conference proceedings without formal peer review, or preprints (preliminary versions) that lack confirmed scientific recognition.

2.3. Selection Process

The selection process was carried out in four consecutive phases according to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, allowing for a rigorous and transparent filtering of relevant studies from an initial universe of 6179 records. The screening was performed through both automated criteria (database filters) and manual checks (title, abstract, and full-text reading), ensuring the technical, methodological, and thematic eligibility of the included studies.

2.3.1. Phase 1: Identification

A systematic search was conducted in two high-impact academic databases—ScienceDirect and MDPI—between 9 June and 9 July 2025. Thirty-four different keyword combinations in English were used, aligned with the axes of analysis (“community participation”, “urban resilience”, “collaborative participation”, “green spaces”, among others). This stage yielded a total of 6179 articles.

2.3.2. Phase 2: Screening

Six progressive automated filters were applied:

• Publication period (2021–2025),
• Document type (research articles),
• Subject areas related to urban sciences (according to the selected academic databases, only social sciences and environmental sciences are considered as related),
• Open access or open archive,
• Availability via subscription,
• Relevance assessed through title and abstract screening.

After these filters, the number of records was progressively reduced to 59 articles.

2.3.3. Phase 3: Eligibility Assessment

The 59 pre-selected studies underwent a more detailed evaluation through full-text reading, cross-checked against the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Section 2.2.1 and Section 2.2.2). As a result, 34 articles were identified as potentially eligible, of which 8 were excluded: one for being a theoretical study without empirical application (n = 1), one for focusing on rural or non-urban natural spaces (n = 1), and six for duplication (n = 6).

2.3.4. Phase 4: Final Inclusion

The final result consisted of 26 articles (Table 2) that met all inclusion criteria. These constitute the corpus of analysis for the synthesis and thematic categorization presented in this systematic review.

2.4. Quality Assessment

To enhance the methodological rigor of this systematic review, we incorporated two complementary quality assessment tools: the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT, version 2018) [51] and the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach [52].

2.4.1. Critical Appraisal Using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT)

First, all 26 selected articles were evaluated using MMAT [51], which is designed to assess the methodological quality of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies through five standardized criteria for each study design, each comprising a set of items to evaluate the appropriateness of the research design, data collection and analysis processes, and the overall rigor of this study. Each article was independently reviewed and scored accordingly, and the results were summarized in a quality-rating table (

Table 3. Quality appraisal of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).

Code	Screening Quest.		1. Quantitative Descriptive Studies					2. Qualitative Studies					3. Mixed Methods Studies					Score	Comments
	S1	S2	1.1	1.2	1.3	1.4	1.5	2.1	2.2	2.3	2.4	2.5	3.1	3.2	3.3	3.4	3.5
A6	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Can’t tell	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	80%	Survey-based analysis with clear sampling design; however, limited detail on response rate.
A7	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	100%	Stratified sampling and validated wellbeing indicators ensure reliability and representativeness.
A11	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	100%	PLS-SEM model accurately fits large-sample survey data with adequate reporting of assumptions.
A12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Can’t tell	Yes	Can’t tell	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	60%	Civic engagement survey uses suitable tools, though representativeness and nonresponse details are limited.
A16	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	100%	Robust spatial and statistical methods applied to a well-defined urban sample.
A22	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	100%	Microclimatic field data analyzed using appropriate regression and validation methods.
A1	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	100%	The ethnographic, community-based design effectively captures self-organization dynamics in informal settlements.
A2	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	100%	Participatory planning workshops are well matched to the goal of assessing multi-actor cooperation.
A3	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	100%	Semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis are consistent with qualitative rigor.
A4	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	100%	Co-creation and design-charrette methods are suitable for exploring collaborative governance.
A8	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	100%	The combination of interviews and policy review supports robust triangulation.
A9	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	100%	Comparative case analysis demonstrates clear derivation of findings from empirical evidence.
A14	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	100%	Grounded analysis of elderly users’ perceptions is coherent and adequately supported by data.
A15	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	100%	The interpretative approach aligns with the study of social inclusion in Brazilian neighborhoods.
A17	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	100%	Post-disaster qualitative fieldwork and focus groups provide strong empirical grounding.
A18	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	100%	Documentary review and interviews ensure validity in assessing institutional governance.
A20	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	100%	Systematic qualitative synthesis appropriately addresses questions of collaborative resilience.
A23	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	100%	Multi-case municipal comparison reveals coherent analytical interpretation.
A24	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	100%	Policy-focused qualitative evaluation exhibits internal consistency between data and interpretation.
A5	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	Yes	Yes	Yes	Can’t tell	Yes	80%	The rationale for combining perception surveys with ethnographic observation is clear; integration is strong, though divergences are not explicitly discussed.
A10	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	100%	The microclimatic quantitative results and qualitative user feedback are effectively combined to assess comfort; full coherence achieved.
A13	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	Yes	Yes	Yes	Can’t tell	Yes	80%	Participatory mobile data collection and collective interpretation are integrated, but discrepancies between qualitative narratives and numeric trends are not detailed.
A19	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	100%	The iterative co-production process successfully merges spatial mapping with participatory storytelling; well-justified and consistent.
A21	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	Yes	Yes	Yes	Can’t tell	Yes	80%	Documentary analysis and field validation are complementary, but limited reflection on potential inconsistencies.
A25	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	100%	The design justifies combining qualitative and quantitative student surveys; integration and validation are well described.
A26	Yes	Yes	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	100%	Mixed-method triangulation (co-design, community meetings, and financial analysis) is coherent and robustly interpreted.

Screening questions: S1. Are there clear research questions? S2. Do the collected data allow one to address the research questions? 1. Quantitative descriptive studies: 1.1. Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the research question? 1.2. Is the sample representative of the target population? 1.3. Are the measurements appropriate? 1.4. Is the risk of nonresponse bias low? 1.5. Is the statistical analysis appropriate to answer the research question? 2. Qualitative studies: 2.1. Is the qualitative approach appropriate to answer the research question? 2.2. Are the qualitative data collection methods adequate to address the research question? 2.3. Are the findings adequately derived from the data? 2.4. Is the interpretation of the results sufficiently substantiated by data? 2.5. Is there coherence between qualitative data sources, collection, analysis and interpretation? 3. Mixed methods studies: 3.1. Is there an adequate rationale for using a mixed methods design to address the research question? 3.2. Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question? 3.3. Are the outputs of the integration of qualitative and quantitative components adequately interpreted? 3.4. Are divergences and inconsistencies between the quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed? 3.5. Do the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved?

). Studies were not excluded on the basis of low MMAT scores but were interpreted with caution during synthesis. The quality of each study was assessed independently by two reviewers (L.C. and A.G.), and discrepancies were resolved through discussion or by consulting a third reviewer (A.A.). The interpretation and synthesis of the results were guided by the quality assessment procedure, assigning greater weight to the synthesis of higher-quality studies.

Across all categories, the studies show methodological coherence and alignment between research design and objectives. The qualitative corpus excels in depth and contextual sensitivity, whereas quantitative studies contribute with empirical precision and measurable evidence. Mixed-methods papers bridge both by demonstrating high integration between community-based processes and spatial-analytical validation. Overall, methodological quality is high, reflecting the global academic shift toward co-produced, evidence-based, and systemically integrated approaches to urban resilience.

2.4.2. Confidence Assessment of Synthesized Findings

To assess confidence in the main qualitative findings of this review, we applied the GRADE-CERQual framework [52]. Each synthesized theme—such as collaborative co-management strategies, participatory green space typologies, and resilience outcomes—was evaluated across four domains: (i) methodological limitations of the contributing studies, (ii) coherence of the finding, (iii) adequacy of the data, and (iv) relevance of the included studies to the review question. Based on these assessments, an overall confidence level (high, moderate, low, or very low) was assigned to each key finding. The results of this appraisal are presented in the Summary of Qualitative Findings Table in the Results section (see Section 3.1.6 Key Findings).

Together, these tools allowed for a robust and transparent evaluation of both the quality of the included studies and the strength of the synthesized evidence, addressing reviewer concerns regarding risk of bias and reliability of conclusions.

2.5. Data Extraction and Analysis

Once the 26 studies that met all inclusion criteria were identified, the process of data extraction, analysis, and interpretation was carried out through a detailed reading of each article. A multicriteria data extraction matrix (Table S3) was developed and piloted to ensure consistency between reviewers. Four reviewers independently extracted information, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. This process enabled the systematization of key variables for comparison across studies and the subsequent construction of thematic categories.

The data extraction matrix captured bibliographic information (author, year, country), study design, type of public green space, scale of incidence, objectives, type of participation, resilience approach, and key findings. These variables were subsequently organized into a structured analytical framework (Section 2.5.2 and

Table 4. Parameters, categories and items of the analysis framework.

Parameters		Categories		Subcategories/Items
Descriptive parameters		Code		A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13, A14, A15, A16, A17, A18, A19, A20, A21, A22, A23, A24, A25, A26
		Authors		According to each case and its applicable code (Table 3)
		Article title		According to each case and its applicable code (Table 3)
		DOI		According to each case and its applicable code (Table 3)
		Year		2021–2025, according to each case (Table 3)
		Country or region of study		Oceania
				Asia
				Africa
				Europe
				North America
				Central America
				South America
Analytical parameters	Theoretical codes	Type or strategy of participation promoted		- Community self-organization and self-management
				- Multi-stakeholder co-management and co-design
				- Active and collaborative non-institutionalized participation
				- Consultative or indirect participation
				- Institutional or technical participation
		Theoretical approaches to urban resilience		According to each case
		Unit of analysis (Type of green public space)		- Nature-based Solutions (NbSs)
				- Urban green infrastructure
				- Cultural park
				- Pocket park
				- Floodable park
				- Urban public park
				- Academic green spaces (university campus)
				- Agro-urban public park
				- Urban gardens
				- Academic garden courtyards (school)
				- Public terraces
				- Green coverage
		Scale of incidence		- Region
				- Metropolitan
				- Intermediate city
				- Municipality
				- Neighborhood
				- Town
				- Local (community)
				- Local peri-urban
		Objective		According to each case
		Main results or findings		According to each case
	Methodological codes	Applied methodology		- Qualitative
				- Quantitative
				- Mixed
		Nature of the intervention		- Program
				- Participatory project
				- Policy
				- Case study
		Dimensions (primary/secondary) and subdimensions of prevailing urban resilience (SGPENVE Framework)	Social (S)	S1	Cooperation and partnerships
				S2	Citizen participation
				S3	Social inclusion
				S4	Social cohesion
				S5	Risk management
			Governance (G)	G1	Cooperation and partnerships (Neighborhood promoters)
				G2	Cooperation and partnerships (Government agents)
				G3	Cooperation and partnerships (Private agents)
			Physical (P)	P1	Comprehensive infrastructure
				P2	Mobility and connectivity
			Environmental (ENV)	EN1	Biodiversity and ecosystem services
				EN2	Water resources
			Economic (E)	E1	Economic stability
		Predominant urban resilience subdimensions used	Subdim. 1–5	According to each case
		Indicators of participation and urban resilience used	Indicator 1–5	According to each case
		Types of instruments applied		- Structured interview
				- Semi-structured interview
				- In-depth interview
				- Online questionnaire
				- Mixed methodology based on GIS
				- Face-to-face survey
				- Participant observation
				- Focus group
				- Document analysis
				- Observation/Photographic
		Nature of the instrument		According to each case
		Relevant item or question		According to each case
		Measurement scale		- Nominal (categories without order, e.g., gender, type of park)
				- Ordinal (categories with order, e.g., frequency of use)

), which guided the coding and synthesis of the results.

2.5.1. Data Extraction

Four reviewers independently extracted data using the multicriteria matrix (Table S3). Discrepancies were resolved by consensus through discussion and, when necessary, by consulting a senior researcher. This ensured consistency and reliability in the extracted information.

The multicriteria data extraction matrix (Table S3) included the following variables.

A. Descriptive parameters:

• Internal code.
• Author(s) of the publication.
• Article title.
• DOI.
• Year of publication.
• Country or region of study.

B. Analytical parameters—Theoretical codes:

• Type or strategy of participation promoted.
• Theoretical approaches to urban resilience.
• Unit of analysis (type of green public space): Nature-based Solutions (NbSs), Urban green infrastructure, Cultural park, Pocket park, Floodable park, Urban public park, Academic green spaces (university campus), Agro-urban public park, Urban gardens, Green schoolyards, Public terraces, Green coverage.
• Scale of incidence: region, metropolitan, intermediate city, municipality, neighborhood, local community, peri-urban community.
• Objective.
• Main results or findings.

C. Analytical parameters—Methodological codes:

• Types of research methods.
• Nature of the intervention.
• Predominant dimensions of urban resilience.
• Most frequently applied sub-dimensions of urban resilience.
• Most frequently used indicators of urban resilience or participation.
• Types of urban resilience or participation instruments applied.
• Relevant questions of applied instruments.
• Measurement scale of applied instruments.
• Availability of applied instrument.

The codification of these variables allowed the information to be organized in a standardized manner, facilitating its comparison and interpretation from a critical perspective of participation and urban resilience.

The multicriteria extraction matrix included a total of 21 variables grouped into three main blocks: (A) Descriptive parameters (6 variables, e.g., author, year, country, DOI, title, and code), (B) Theoretical codes (6 variables, covering type of participation, theoretical approach to resilience, typology and scale of public space, objectives, and main findings), and (C) Methodological codes (9 variables, including method type, intervention nature, resilience dimensions, subdimensions, indicators, applied instrument, nature of instrument, relevant item or question, measurement scale).

2.5.2. Analytical Framework

The extracted information was organized into a detailed synthesis table with the multicriteria dataset (Table 4), which enabled the comparison of cases and the generation of an interpretive analysis on two scales presented in the Results section: Theoretical Codes and Methodological Codes. This approach provided a critical evaluation of each article, as reflected in the results.

The analytical framework was developed a priori based on the objectives of this systematic review and the consolidated literature on urban resilience and participatory planning. The framework was tested and refined during the pilot phase of data extraction to ensure clarity and consistency. The final framework, presented in Table 4, defines the parameters, categories, and items used to guide both the coding process and the comparative analysis of the studies. This structure enabled the organization of information into Theoretical Codes and Methodological Codes, ensuring systematic and transparent synthesis.

2.5.3. Interpretive Synthesis

The information extracted and organized within the analytical framework enabled the articulation of the results across two complementary levels: theoretical and methodological codes. Through this synthesis, patterns of recurrence as well as relevant differences in study approaches were identified, allowing for a comparative and critical reading of the selected literature. This phase represents a methodological bridge between the systematization of data and the analytical interpretation, which is developed in the Results section.

The synthesis followed the PRISMA 2020 guidance (items 13 a–f), ensuring transparency in how studies were grouped, how data were prepared and displayed, and why a qualitative narrative synthesis was methodologically justified. Studies were grouped into thematic syntheses according to previously defined variables (type of public space, scale of incidence, objectives, participation strategies, resilience approaches, and key findings). Data were analyzed through qualitative coding and comparative analysis, and the results are displayed in structured tables and narrative categories. The interpretation was weighted based on the MMAT assessment to give greater weight to results of higher methodological quality and to address discrepancies between studies. Heterogeneity was examined by cross-comparing territorial and regional scales, as well as different participatory strategies.

GRADE-CERQual complemented this quality assessment by focusing on confidence in the qualitative findings of the synthesis, using criteria that consider the methodology, coherence, relevance, and sufficiency of the qualitative data. This allows for rating the overall confidence in each conclusion derived from qualitative data.

Thus, the interpretive synthesis combined data extracted from the included studies, integrating the MMAT assessment for quality and GRADE-CERQual for confidence, through a narrative or thematic analysis that groups, compares, and contrasts results, indicating the limitations and strength of the evidence. All interpretive and exclusionary decisions were justified within the transparency framework established by PRISMA 2020.

The process was iterative, critical, and systematic, and clearly guaranteed the entire interpretive synthesis procedure.

2.6. Protocol Registration

This review followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The protocol has been prepared for registration under the Open Science Framework database, titled “Transformative Urban Resilience and Collaborative Participation in Public Spaces.” This registration aims to strengthen methodological transparency, reproducibility, and facilitate potential future updates or meta-analytical extensions.

2.7. Limitations

This review was limited to two academic databases—ScienceDirect and MDPI—primarily due to institutional access and their established reputation in the social and environmental sciences. While this selection ensured transparency and methodological consistency, it may restrict the comprehensiveness of the corpus and introduce potential selection bias. Future studies could expand the database scope to include multidisciplinary repositories such as Scopus, Web of Science, or SpringerLink to enhance coverage and representativeness of global research outputs.

3. Results

The systematization of the 26 selected articles enabled the identification of geographical, conceptual, and typological trends in the study of social participation and urban resilience (

Table 5. Research selected according to territorial distribution and keywords.

Code	Keywords		Continent
		Oceania	Asia	Africa	Europe	North America	Central America	South America
A5	“community participation”, “boulevard”		Jagakarsa
A6		Australia
A16	“collaboration”, “urban resilience”, “green spaces”		China
A15								Brazil
A11			China
A7			India
A21					Spain
A14			India
A25	“collaboration”, “urban resilience”, “public spaces”				Poland
A19						United States
A20					Several countries
A3					Spain
A2					Spain
A23					Spain
A13	“social participation”, “resilience”, “public space”				United Kingdom
A9					Several countries
A8					Spain
A24	“urban resilience”, “public spaces”				Spain
A22					Spain
A10						United States
A26	“urban resilience”, “public spaces”, “collaborative participation”				Italia
A17	“collaboration”, “urban resilience”		Turkey
A18					Spain
A1	“collaboration”, “sustainable spaces”			Mozambique
A12	“civic engagement”, “parks”						Costa Rica
A4					Serbia
Summatory and percentage		1 4%	6 23%	1 4%	14 54%	2 8%	1 4%	1 4%

, Figure 2). The analysis reveals a marked predominance of research in European contexts (54%, n = 14), with Spain standing out as the most productive country. This concentration suggests that the institutional framework and traditions of participatory planning in Europe have favored a more consolidated development of the link between participation and resilience. In second place, Asia accounts for 23% (n = 6) of the cases, evidencing emerging academic interest in regions experiencing rapid urbanization and major environmental challenges.

The analysis of keywords—among which collaboration, social participation, urban resilience, and green spaces stand out at 48%—confirms this distribution: nearly 50% of the studies are concentrated in Europe and 33.3% in Asia. This reflects a convergence in lines of action towards the collaborative management of public spaces and climate resilience.

Regarding the typologies of green public spaces, notable diversity was identified across continents (

Table 6. Theoretical Codes in the Reviewed Literature.

Code	Participation	Type of Green Public Space (Unit of Analysis)	Scale	Objective (Short)	Theoretical Approach	Key Findings
A1	Self-organization	Pocket park	Neighborhood	Informal/community infrastructure	Community & Adaptive resilience	Informal street management; need coordination
A2	Co-management	Schoolyards	Neighborhood	Collaboration in schoolyards	Integral & Participatory resilience	Institutional reconfiguration, co-production
A3	Co-management	Urban gardens	Metropolitan	Strengthen local social capital	Social & Participatory resilience	Cohesion, intergenerational ties, shared governance
A4	Co-management	NbSs	Intermediate city	Urban co-creation	Participatory resilience	Co-creation labs (Belgrade) foster engagement
A5	Active-collaborative	Cultural park	Town	Blue-green use (Setu Babakan)	Socio-ecological & Community resilience	Equity challenges; regulation needed
A6	Active-collaborative	UGI	Neighborhood	TOD densification benefits	Socio-ecological & Participatory resilience	Community supports TOD & green models
A7	Active-collaborative	UGI	Intermediate city	Use of green spaces (Nagpur)	Socio-ecological resilience	Proximity ↑ use; low elder participation
A8	Co-management	Floodable park	Metropolitan	Barriers/facilitators for NbSs	Participatory & Integral resilience	Institutional barriers; citizen-driven NbSs
A9	Consultative	NbSs	Metropolitan	Integration: social, political, environmental	Integral urban resilience	Social/env. gains; exclusion persists
A10	Consultative	TUPPs	Neighborhood	Urban comfort (objective/subjective)	Socio-ecological resilience	Perceived comfort ↑ despite limited physical gains
A11	Active-collaborative	Pocket park	Local	Citizen motivation post-crisis	Transformative & Integral resilience	Norms & perceptions drive governance
A12	Co-management	UGI	Metropolitan	Urban model & civic participation	Transformative & Integral resilience	Compact cities ↑ civic use & cohesion
A13	Active-collaborative	Urban park	Metropolitan	Active ageing (Birmingham)	Social & Participatory resilience	Multilevel action framework (WHO aligned)
A14	Active-collaborative	Urban park	Metropolitan	Healthy ageing (India)	Integral urban resilience	Green spaces ↑ well-being; access inequity
A15	Consultative	Agro-urban park	Municipality	Urban agriculture policy (Brazil)	Multilevel governance & planning	Food security ↑; policies & financing needed
A16	Active-collaborative	Urban park	Metropolitan	Green equity & happiness	Resilience with social justice	Inequitable access ↓ happiness of vulnerable
A17	Consultative	Community monuments	Metropolitan	Post-disaster reconstruction (Antakya)	Transformative & Integral resilience	Recovery through education & cultural identity
A18	Institutional/technical	Public terraces	Metropolitan	PPP lessons (Barcelona)	Multilevel governance	Alignment & conflict management essential
A19	Co-management	UGI	Metropolitan	Health impacts of floods (Milwaukee)	Social, participatory & adaptive resilience	Vulnerability mapping; role of justice orgs
A20	Co-management	NbSs	Metropolitan	Tools for NbSs implementation	Social & participatory resilience	10 challenges, 17 service-design tools
A21	Institutional/technical	Floodable park	Municipality	Stormwater management (Bajo Segura)	Adaptive & Integral resilience	Runoff ↓, water quality ↑, sustainable planning
A22	Co-management	Street	Neighborhood	Thermal comfort methodology	Integral urban resilience	Thermal comfort ↑; validated co-simulation
A23	Institutional/technical	Floodable park	Municipality	Rainwater & adaptation (tourism)	Adaptive & Integral resilience	Flood risk ↓; safety ↑; need socialization
A24	Consultative	UGI	Metropolitan	Green infra policy evaluation	Collaborative & Socio-ecological resilience	Green infra ↑ resilience in vulnerable areas
A25	Institutional/technical	Academic green spaces	Local	University activism (transition)	Socio-ecological & Participatory resilience	Re-vegetation, ecosystem services ↑, eco-centric shift
A26	Active-collaborative	Peri-urban agro-park	Local-periurban	Sustainable planning tool (Prato)	Socio-ecological & Participatory resilience	Peri-urban agro-park ↑ multifunctionality

The arrows (↑ and ↓) in the “Key Findings” column indicate the direction of change or impact associated with the interventions or outcomes reported in each case. Specifically, ↑ indicates an increase, improvement, or strengthening; while ↓ signifies a decrease, reduction, or limitation. These symbols are used to concisely represent the observed effects on factors such as usage, cohesion, well-being, risk, or other relevant indicators in each study.

). The most represented category is Urban Green Infrastructure (19.23%), located in diverse contexts such as Australia, India, Spain, Costa Rica, and the United States. These are followed by urban public parks (15.38%), present in the United Kingdom, Italy, China, and India. Emerging adaptive typologies stand out, such as pocket parks, Nature-based Solutions (NbSs), and floodable parks, each accounting for 11.54%.

Less frequently, unique typologies were recorded, such as schoolyards (Spain), urban gardens (Spain), cultural parks (Indonesia), agro-urban parks (Brazil), community monuments (Turkey), public terraces (Spain), streets (Spain), and academic green spaces (Poland).

Concerning the forms of promoted social participation, a heterogeneous distribution was observed (Table 6). The most frequent modality is multi-actor co-management and co-design (30.77%), highlighted primarily in Spain but also documented in other European contexts (Serbia), Central America (Costa Rica), and North America (USA). This is followed by active and non-institutionalized collaborative participation (26.92%), documented in cases from Asia (Jagakarsa, China), Oceania (Australia), India (Nagpur), and Europe (Italy, United Kingdom). At a second level, consultative or indirect participation (15.38%) and institutional or technical participation (15.38%) appear, both with broad territorial representation. Finally, cases of self-organization and community self-management represent 3.85%, located in Mozambique.

3.1. Theoretical Codes

The theoretical codes were classified in Table 6 under the following categories: unit of analysis, scale of incidence, main objective, participation strategy, theoretical approaches to urban resilience, and main findings. This allowed for the systematization of concepts identified in the reviewed literature. Common patterns were found in participatory strategies and resilience approaches, different scales of intervention, and objectives related to urban sustainability. The results of the cases demonstrated the effectiveness of participatory strategies and integrated approaches to urban resilience, providing a theoretical foundation to evidence the relationship and influence of the study variables. This categorization is further developed in Table S3.

3.1.1. Type or Strategy of Participation Promoted

The analyzed cases reveal a diversity of participation strategies spanning from institutionalization to citizen self-management. Frequency analysis identifies multi-actor co-management and co-design as the most frequent approach (30.77%), convening citizens, institutions, and private or academic stakeholders (A2, A3, A4, A8, A19, A20, A22). These initiatives demonstrate a direct relationship with transformative resilience outcomes through the strengthening of collaborative governance and the generation of innovation in urban planning processes.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, equally significant, is community self-organization, where residents manage spaces directly (A1). This strategy, although less frequent (3.85%), relates to building resilience through territorial appropriation and strengthening social capital in contexts of high community autonomy.

Another important group corresponds to active non-institutionalized participation (26.92% of cases), based on everyday place appropriation, civic motivation, and spontaneous interaction (A5, A6, A7, A11, A14, A16, A26). This reliance on routine spatial practices indicates that resilience is also built through informal actions and pre-existing social networks.

In contrast, some cases achieved only consultative or indirect participation (15.38%), limited to workshops, surveys, or consultations (A9, A10, A15, A17, A24). This modality incorporates citizen voice but typically has a limited impact on final decision-making. Finally, institutional or technical participation (15.38% frequency) occurs in public-private partnerships, municipalities, or universities (A18, A21, A23, A25) and is associated with more rigid operational frameworks where expert knowledge and formal procedures prevail.

3.1.2. Type of Green Public Space

The analysis of the 26 cases reveals a wide diversity of green public spaces, corresponding to different scales, urban needs, and urban resilience strategies. At the micro-scale, pocket parks (A1, A10, A11), school greenyards (A2), and urban gardens (A3) stand out as community proximity spaces. At a larger scale, cases of Urban Green Infrastructure were identified, including corridors, parks, streets, and transport areas (A6, A7, A12, A19, A24), as well as floodable parks (A8, A21, A23) designed to manage stormwater.

These initiatives fall within Nature-based Solutions, which include squares, green corridors, and coastal areas (A4, A9, A20). Singular cases were also identified: a cultural park (A5), community monuments (A17), public terraces (A18), and academic green spaces on university campuses (A25). The productive dimension also appears in agro-urban parks (A15, A26). Finally, urban public parks (A13, A14, A16) and green streets (A22) reinforce the importance of everyday spaces in building resilience.

3.1.3. Scale of Incidence

The scale of incidence of interventions varies considerably, ranging from the neighborhood and community level (focused on small-scale projects with high social impact) to the urban and metropolitan level, where actions form part of broader master plans or public policies.

Most cases (12 out of 26) were implemented at the urban or metropolitan scale, encompassing entire cities or metropolitan areas (A3, A8, A9, A12, A13, A14, A16, A17, A18, A19, A20, A24). Another significant proportion corresponds to neighborhood-scale initiatives (5 cases) (A1, A2, A6, A10, A22). Additionally, municipal-level interventions were identified (3 cases) (A15, A21, A23). To a lesser extent, some cases were located in intermediate cities (2 cases) (A4, A7), in rural town contexts (1 case) (A5), or in very local settings such as neighborhoods, university campuses, or peri-urban areas (3 cases) (A11, A25, A26).

3.1.4. Objectives

The 26 reviewed cases show diverse but complementary objectives. Some focused on community action and social cohesion, analyzing self-managed neighborhood infrastructure (A1), collaborative processes in schoolyards (A2), urban gardens (A3), and pocket parks linked to citizen participation (A10, A11). Others concentrated on urban planning and management, comparing participatory intervention models (A4) exploring university activism in the ecological transition (A25), or evaluating lessons from public-private partnerships (A18).

A significant group addressed NbSs and green infrastructure, identifying barriers (A8), improvements in governance and climate (A9), environmental justice (A19), collaborative tools (A20), and green infrastructure policies (A24). In parallel, several cases evaluated local interventions such as sustainable drainage (A21, A23), thermal comfort methodologies (A22), or tactical parks (A10), measuring their effectiveness in risk mitigation and the enhancement in urban comfort.

Social uses and equity were also analyzed, considering community perceptions (A5), demographic data (A7), inequities in urban happiness (A16), and healthy aging experiences (A13, A14). Finally, some studies targeted policies and innovations, such as urban agriculture (A15), cultural identity and education in reconstruction (A17), and agro-urban public parks as sustainable models (A26).

3.1.5. Theoretical Approach to Urban Resilience

The analysis of the 26 cases reveals a variety of theoretical approaches, delineating a conceptual evolution from sectoral perspectives towards more integrated and transformative frameworks. Socio-ecological resilience predominated, linking social and natural systems, applied in contexts such as green infrastructure, pocket parks, and community-led experiences (A6, A7, A10, A24, A25, A26). Social and participatory resilience was also frequent, focusing on social capital and community cohesion (A3, A13, A19, A20).

Comprehensive urban resilience appeared in contexts of complex planning and management (A2, A8, A9, A14, A22, A23), while transformative and integral resilience was associated with crises, reconstruction, and social justice (A11, A12, A16, A17). More specifically, some cases addressed multi-level governance (A15, A18) and adaptive resilience related to risk management (A21, A23).

3.1.6. Key Findings

To complement the thematic synthesis, a formal evaluation of confidence in this review’s main findings was conducted using the GRADE-CERQual approach. This assessment strengthens the analytical transparency of this review and allows readers to better judge the robustness of the qualitative evidence base.

The key findings—identified through cross-case synthesis of the 26 selected studies—were grouped into seven analytical dimensions: (1) community-based actions, (2) multi-actor co-management, (3) nature-based solutions (NbSs), (4) social equity as a cross-cutting axis, (5) cultural identity and memory, (6) institutional innovation, and (7) planned densification. These dimensions reflect the main pathways through which collaborative participation in public spaces contributes to transformative urban resilience across diverse contexts.

For each finding, four domains were assessed: methodological limitations, coherence, adequacy of data, and relevance. Based on these, an overall confidence level (high, moderate, low, or very low) was assigned, along with a brief justification. Studies supporting each finding are explicitly listed to facilitate traceability. The results of this appraisal are presented in

Table 7. Summary of Findings Table del GRADE-CERQual.

Review Finding	Dimension	Studies Supporting Key Findings	Methodological limitations	Coherence	Adequacy of Data	Relevance	Overall Confidence
Multi-actor co-management and co-design strengthen collaborative governance in urban resilience and generate innovation in planning.	Multi-actor co-management	A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A11, A12, A13, A14, A15, A16, A18, A19, A20, A21, A22, A23, A25, A26 (n = 22)	Moderate	High	High	High	High
Nature-based Solutions (NbSs) are widely implemented, delivering ecological benefits (e.g., flood control, cooling, water quality) for urban resilience, despite institutional barriers.	Nature-based Solutions (NbSs)	A4, A8, A9, A20, A21, A22, A23, A24, A25 (n = 9)	Moderate	High	High	High	High
Community self-organization and local initiatives build social capital and adaptive capacity in public-space resilience, through self-organization, gardens, and pocket parks.	Community-based actions	A1, A2, A3, A10, A11 (n = 5)	Moderate	High	Moderate	High	Moderate
Social equity is a cross-cutting theme: interventions often improve well-being/cohesion, but leave persistent inequalities (access gaps, exclusion, gentrification risks).	Social equity (cross-cutting axis)	A5, A9, A13, A14, A16 (n = 5)	Moderate	High	Moderate	High	Moderate
Cultural identity and collective memory act as resilience resources, aiding recovery and social cohesion post-disturbance.	Cultural identity and memory	A5, A17, A23 (n = 3)	Moderate	High	Low	Moderate	Low
Institutional innovations (e.g., public–private partnerships, academic activism, multifunctional agro-urban projects) provide novel governance models supporting resilience.	Institutional innovation	A18, A25, A26 (n = 3)	Moderate	High	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate
Planned urban densification (e.g., TOD, compact city design) is associated with higher civic use/cohesion alongside green systems, can enhance green-space use and social cohesion when supported by community engagement.	Planned densification	A6, A12 (n = 2)	Moderate	Moderate	Low	Moderate	Low

.

As summarized in Table 7, the synthesis identified seven core review findings. The following sections provide a concise narrative explanation of each finding, supported by illustrative examples from the included studies and contextualized within the broader objectives of this review:

• Multi-actor co-management and co-design strengthen collaborative governance in urban resilience and generate innovation in planning: A large body of evidence (n = 22) underscores the centrality of multi-actor co-management and co-design practices in fostering collaborative urban governance. These approaches, documented across diverse contexts (e.g., A1, A3, A13, A18), promote inclusive planning and adaptive resilience by integrating stakeholders from government, civil society, academia, and local communities. The consistency of these findings across methodological and geographical variations indicates high coherence and adequacy of data. While most studies employed qualitative approaches without formal bias appraisal, their conceptual clarity and convergence justify a high overall confidence in this finding.
• Nature-based Solutions (NbSs) are widely implemented, delivering ecological benefits for urban resilience, despite institutional barriers: NbS strategies are featured prominently in nine studies (e.g., A4, A9, A21, A25), which document benefits such as flood control, urban cooling, and enhanced water quality. Despite varied institutional settings, findings are remarkably coherent in demonstrating the effectiveness of NbSs in building ecological and social resilience. Institutional or governance barriers—though present—are discussed as contextual constraints rather than contradictory evidence. The methodological consistency and relevance of these cases support a high confidence assessment of this review finding.
• Community self-organization and local initiatives build social capital and adaptive capacity in public-space resilience: Evidence from five studies (A1, A2, A3, A10, A11) emphasizes the vital role of grassroots initiatives, community gardens, and self-managed public spaces in enhancing urban resilience. These locally driven actions foster social cohesion, adaptability, and citizen empowerment. Although findings are consistent and thematically coherent, the qualitative nature and variable depth of the studies—combined with a lack of formal bias assessments—suggest methodological limitations. As such, the overall confidence is moderate, despite the strong thematic presence of community-based strategies.
• Social equity is a cross-cutting theme in participatory resilience, with persistent access and inclusion gaps: This theme emerged in five studies (A5, A9, A13, A14, A16), which discuss the dual outcomes of participatory planning: while many interventions enhance social well-being and cohesion, they also risk exclusion or displacement, particularly through processes like gentrification. The recurrence of these concerns across multiple contexts lends coherence and relevance to the finding. However, as equity was often a secondary focus rather than the primary object of analysis, and due to methodological diversity and limited bias evaluation, the overall confidence is moderate.
• Cultural identity and collective memory act as resilience resources, aiding recovery and cohesion: Although only three studies (A5, A17, A23) directly explore the cultural dimensions of resilience, they provide compelling insights into how place-based memory, heritage, and symbolic landscapes support community recovery and cohesion. These findings are coherent and conceptually rich but suffer from low data adequacy, limiting generalizability. As such, this thematic axis—while promising—carries low overall confidence in terms of evidence strength across the full sample.
• Institutional innovations support resilience through novel governance mechanisms: Select cases (A18, A25, A26) highlight the role of institutional innovation in resilience-building, showcasing public–private partnerships, interdisciplinary urban labs, and academic-civic collaborations. These models reveal governance adaptability and new participatory pathways. While consistent in thematic scope, the low number of supporting studies and heterogeneity of institutional formats yield moderate coherence and adequacy, resulting in moderate overall confidence.
• Planned densification can enhance green-space use and social cohesion when paired with participation: Two studies (A6, A12) demonstrate that compact urban development—such as transit-oriented design—can yield social and ecological benefits when grounded in community participation. Though these examples consistently show positive outcomes, the limited sample size and lack of comparative analysis reduce confidence in the generalizability of the finding. Thus, despite good thematic alignment, the overall confidence is low, primarily due to low adequacy of data.

To robustly analyze the links between participatory strategies and transformative resilience outcomes, a synthesis matrix was constructed (

Table 8. Comprehensive summary matrix to link participatory strategies (key findings) and transformative resilience outcomes (dimensions).

Key Findings/Participatory Strategy	Transformative Resilience Outcomes (Dimensions)
	Social	Governance	Physical	Environmental	Economic	Security
Multi-actor co-management	●	●	○	○	○	○
Nature-based Solutions (NbSs)	○	●	●	●	○	○
Community-based actions	●	○	○	○	○	○
Social equity interventions	●	○	–	–	●	○
Cultural identity/memory	●	–	–	○	–	○
Institutional innovation	○	●	○	–	●	○
Planned urban densification	●	○	●	●	○	●

● = Strong evidence of influence; ○ = Moderate evidence; – = Weak or unclear evidence.

). This matrix details the strength of association between each intervention and the resilience dimensions/indicators adopted, drawing from the empirical evidence base.

To enrich interpretation, a Sankey diagram (Figure 3) visualizes the dynamic flows between participatory strategies (key findings) and resilience outcomes (dimensions), highlighting both recurrent and context-specific linkages. Each flow represents the empirical pathways by which specific participatory interventions influence various aspects of urban resilience, with the thickness of flows and presence of filled or hollow circles indicating the strength of evidence (strong or moderate) supporting each linkage.

Importantly, the right panels demonstrate that the social and governance dimensions attract the most convergent flows, suggesting these are the resilience domains most consistently activated by participatory interventions. Environmental, economic, and security dimensions feature less prominently, highlighting either nascent areas of research or weak empirical connections within the reviewed cases.

3.2. Methodological Codes

The methodological coding of the 26 cases studied allowed for the identification of methodological patterns to facilitate the reproducibility of the analysis process regarding urban resilience and collaborative participation. This coding then served as a consensus-based guide for data collection and processing in future research. To this end, the data was organized in

Table 9. Methodological Codes in the Reviewed Literature.

Methodological Code	Type or Category	Frequency %
Types of Research Methods (%) n = 26	Mixed	27%
	Qualitative	50%
	Quantitative	26%
Nature of the intervention (%) n = 26	Case study	80%
	Participatory project	12%
	Policy	4%
	Program	4%
Most frequently priority dimension and subdimension according to SGPENVE Framework (%) n = 26	Social (S2—Citizen Participation)	19%
	Social (S4—Social Cohesion)	19%
	Environmental (EN1—Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services)	19%
	Social (S1—Cooperation and Alliances)	11%
	Social (S3—Social Inclusion)	11%
	Governance (G2—Cooperation and Alliances—Government Agents)	11%
	Social (S5—Risk Management)	3%
	Environmental (EN2—Water Resources)	4%
Most frequently dimensions (considering first and second) in each case according to SGPENVE Framework (%) n = 52	Environmental (EN1—Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services)	26%
	Social (S2—Citizen Participation)	13%
	Social (S4—Social Cohesion)	13%
	Physical (P1—Integrated Infrastructure)	9%
	Governance (G2—Government Agents)	7%
	Governance (G2—Government Agents)	7%
	Social (S5—Risk Management)	5%
	Social (S1—Cooperation and Alliances)	5%
	Social (S3—Social Inclusion)	5%
	Governance (G1—Community Promoters)	3%
	Environmental (EN2—Water Resources)	3%
	Physical (P2—Mobility and Connectivity)	2%
	Governance (G3—Private Agents)	2%
Most frequently used subdimensions according to each case of study (%) n = 26	Citizen and community participation	73%
	Sense of belonging and social cohesion	58%
	Perceived safety	46%
	Accessibility	42%
	Social inclusion	39%
	Institutional trust	27%
	Governance	27%
	Shared values	23%
	Ecological connectivity	19%
	Green infrastructure	15%
	Ecological resilience	≤11%
	Perception of climate risk	≤11%
	Economic feasibility	≤11%
Most frequently used indicators according to each case of study (%) n = 26	Frequency of public space use	54%
	Participation in community activities	50%
	Emotional attachment to place	38%
	Perception of safety	38%
	Satisfaction with infrastructure and services	36%
	Physical accessibility	27%
	Perceived quality of maintenance	19%
	Air quality	19%
	Temperature	19%
	Physical and mental well-being	19%
	Relative humidity	15%
	Citizen involvement in decision-making	15%
	Biodiversity	15%
	Vegetation cover	11%
Types of instruments applied (%) n = 26	Semi-structured interviews	57%
	Structured questionnaires	50%
	Direct/participant observation	42%
	Focus groups	34%
	Participatory mapping	27%
	GIS	23%
	Sensors/on-site measurements	15%
	Citizen science/digital platforms	11%
Relevant questions (%) n = 26	Use and appreciation of green spaces	54%
	Social and environmental benefits	42%
	Participation in management/governance	39%
Measurement scales (%) n = 26	Nominal	73%
	Ordinal	69%
	Interval	26%
	Likert	23%
	Open categories	34%

according to the following analytical categories: research method types, nature of the intervention, most frequently addressed dimensions of urban resilience, sub-dimensions most commonly analyzed, predominant indicators of participation and urban resilience, types of instruments employed, relevant questions derived from these instruments, corresponding measurement scales, and the availability of the instruments used.

For a comprehensive examination of urban resilience dimensions, the SGPENVE framework was applied. This framework, previously developed by the authors, synthesizes the key dimensions most recurrently associated with transformative urban resilience in green public spaces identified through an extensive literature review. It evaluates transformative urban resilience through five core dimensions—Social, Governance, Physical, Environmental, and Economic—each further divided into specific sub-dimensions. The application of this classification enabled the systematic organization and comparison of the methodological components identified within the reviewed studies.

In general terms, the analysis reveals a methodological convergence toward the triangulation of research approaches. The methodologies adopted across the reviewed studies integrate qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods, most commonly incorporating instruments such as in-person and online surveys, participant observation, geospatial mapping, and documentary analysis. The predominant dimensions of resilience identified correspond to the social sphere—particularly aspects associated with citizen participation, social cohesion, sense of belonging, social inclusion, cooperation, and institutional trust—while also encompassing environmental and governance components. This distribution provides empirical support for the structural coherence of the previously proposed SGPENVE framework, reaffirming that social, environmental, and governance dimensions constitute its central analytical axes within the specialized literature. Consequently, resilience is predominantly conceptualized as a social process that emerges within and for the community context.

The following subsections present the results, including the frequency and percentage of appearance of the identified elements across the reviewed articles:

3.2.1. Types of Research Methods

The distribution of methods—mixed (27%), combining qualitative techniques such as interviews, focus groups, participant observation, and narrative analysis with quantitative methods including structured surveys, perception scales, and environmental measurements; qualitative (50%); and quantitative (23%)—reveals a field of study where understanding specific processes and contexts takes precedence over statistical generalization.

3.2.2. Nature of the Intervention

The overwhelming majority of studies are case studies (80.8%), evidencing that research in this field primarily relies on in-depth analysis of specific experiences, while participatory projects (three cases) represent just over 11%. Policies (one case) and programs (one case) appear in isolation, each representing less than 4% of the total.

3.2.3. Most Frequently Used Dimensions of Urban Resilience

The analysis of the 26 reviewed articles indicates that the most frequently used sub-dimensions of transformative urban resilience are associated with citizen and community participation (73%), as well as with a sense of belonging and social cohesion (58%), perceived safety (46%), and accessibility (42%). This configuration outlines a clear profile of transformative resilience: it is a process deeply anchored in subjective experience, community agency, and the quality of social life.

3.2.4. Most Frequently Used Sub-Dimensions of Urban Resilience

The analysis of the 26 reviewed articles indicates that the most frequently used sub-dimensions of transformative urban resilience are associated with citizen and community participation (73%) (A4, A5), as well as with a sense of belonging and social cohesion (58%) (A3, A5), perceived safety (46%) (A5, A14), and accessibility (42%) (A1, A25). This configuration outlines a clear profile of transformative resilience: it is a process deeply anchored in subjective experience, community agency, and the quality of social life. This pattern indicates that researchers prioritize measuring factors that enable collective action and psychosocial well-being over purely biophysical or economic indicators.

Other recurrent sub-dimensions include social inclusion (39%), institutional trust (27%), governance (27%), and shared values (23%), as well as those related to ecological connectivity (19%) and green infrastructure (15%). Less frequently identified were sub-dimensions such as ecological resilience, perception of climate risk, spatial benefits, and economic feasibility (≤11%).

3.2.5. Most Frequently Used Participation and Urban Resilience Indicators

The most commonly used indicators focus on measuring:

• Frequency of use of public spaces (54%) (A5, A14),
• Participation in community activities (50%) (A2, A12),
• Emotional attachment to place (38%) (A2),
• Perception of safety (38%) (A3),
• Satisfaction with infrastructure and services (36%) (A1).

This combination denotes a comprehensive approach aimed at capturing not only observable behaviors but also the affective bonds and subjective evaluations that underpin resilience. Environmental indicators such as air quality (19%), temperature (19%), relative humidity (15%), biodiversity (15%), and vegetation cover (11%) are also prominent.

3.2.6. Types of Instruments Applied

The most widely used instruments were:

• Semi-structured interviews (57%) (A1, A8, A26),
• Structured questionnaires (50%) (A5, A12),
• Direct and participant observation (42%) (A8, A14),
• Focus groups (34%) (A17),
• Participatory mapping tools (27%).

This reveals a methodology dominated by primary data collection tools that prioritize depth and contextualization, such as semi-structured interviews (57%) and focus groups (34%). The strong presence of qualitative and participatory methods (participatory mapping, 27%) reaffirms the field’s interpretive and collaborative nature. In studies with an environmental and spatial focus, 23% employed mixed methodologies based on GIS, and 15% utilized sensors or in situ measurements. Furthermore, mobile applications for citizen science and collaborative digital platforms were documented in 11% of the cases.

3.2.7. Relevant Questions from Applied Instruments

The most frequently identified relevant questions are systematically oriented toward three key dimensions:

• The degree of use and evaluation of green spaces (54%) (A5, A14),
• The perception of social and environmental benefits (42%) (A6, A8),
• The willingness to participate in management or governance (39%) (A2, A12).

In general, these questions addressed topics related to frequency and modes of use of green spaces, social integration and sense of belonging, perceived contributions to physical and mental well-being, and willingness to engage in management, maintenance, or decision-making processes related to such spaces.

3.2.8. Measurement Scales of Applied Instruments

Regarding measurement scales, nominal scales (73%) and ordinal scales (69%) predominate, which is consistent with the qualitative and perceptual nature of many variables of interest, such as attitudes and perceptions. These are followed by interval scales used in environmental measurements (26%) and Likert-type scales for assessing perceptions and attitudes (23%), demonstrating a concurrent approach that seeks a degree of quantification and structuring of subjective responses. In qualitative studies, 34% employed open-ended categories for thematic analysis and narrative coding.

3.2.9. Availability of Applied Instruments

The very limited availability of openly accessible research instruments (only 5 out of 26 studies) constitutes a significant limitation for the transparency, replicability, and cumulative advancement of research in this field. Among the selected articles, only five provided open access to the instruments applied:

• An investigation of socio-spatial equality in blue-green space at the Setu Babakan Area, Jakarta;
• (Re)designing the rules: Collaborative planning and institutional innovation in schoolyard transformations in Madrid;
• Improving urban resilience and habitability by an effective regeneration of the streets: A comprehensive approach step-by-step validated in a real case;
• Designing age-friendly communities: Exploring qualitative perspectives on urban green spaces and ageing in two Indian megacities;
• (Re)greening transition of academic green spaces as a response to social and environmental challenges: The role of bottom-up initiatives.

Of these, three cases (75%) used semi-structured interviews, mostly designed to collect qualitative information about perceptions, comfort, activities, frequency of use, and other factors. In summary, these are field instruments aimed at capturing user experiences with green public spaces.

3.2.10. Synthesis of Findings: Participation and Methodological Perspectives

Analysis of recent empirical evidence identifies a set of collaborative participation strategies noted for their recurrence and contribution to transformative urban resilience. Among the most common and significant are multi-actor co-management and co-design, documented as core practices for strengthening collaborative governance and generating innovation in urban planning. Alongside these, Nature-based Solutions (NbSs) emerge as widely implemented interventions in green public spaces, recognized for providing key ecological benefits—such as flood control and urban cooling—and for building socio-ecological resilience, even in the face of institutional barriers. Complementarily, community self-organization—manifested in community gardens and self-managed spaces—establishes itself as a fundamental driver for building social capital, cohesion, and adaptive capacity from the grassroots level.

These strategies do not operate in isolation but are enhanced by institutional innovations—such as urban labs and public-private partnerships—that open new pathways for participation. Likewise, it is observed that planned densification, when articulated with participatory processes, can optimize the use of green spaces and reinforce social cohesion. Two cross-cutting dimensions enrich this relationship: social equity, which acts as a critical criterion in light of the risk of exclusion or gentrification, and cultural identity, which operates as an intangible resource that fosters community recovery and cohesion.

Regarding the theoretical perspectives and research methods characterizing these studies, a socio-ecological approach to resilience predominates, emphasizing adaptability and collaborative governance. Methodologically, the field relies largely on qualitative approaches, which, despite offering notable conceptual richness, present limitations in the formal assessment of biases and in comparative depth. This synthesis suggests that building an integrative framework for future research and practice must, on the one hand, explicitly articulate the dimensions of governance, ecology, society, and culture, recognizing their interconnections. On the other hand, it is imperative to strengthen methodological rigor by incorporating bias assessments and comparative studies, as well as to grant equity a central place in the design and evaluation of interventions. The strength of the evidence varies among findings, being very high for co-management and NbSs, but moderate or low for aspects such as the cultural dimension, which points to priority areas for future research.

4. Discussion

This systematic review engages with the academic debate on resilient urban transformation from a holistic perspective that articulates physical, social, and ecological dimensions, positioning public space as a driver of urban resilience. Findings were organized into theoretical and methodological codes; accordingly, the discussion is structured along these lines and contrasted with ten other systematic reviews on urban resilience and participation.

Regarding the geographical distribution of research, most studies are concentrated in Europe and Asia, with a notable incidence in Spain, revealing an asymmetry in global academic production. This concentration can shape the development of global conceptual and practical frameworks on urban resilience and collaborative participation, as they are influenced by context-specific characteristics, potentially sidelining particular social, economic, cultural, and environmental conditions elsewhere.

The theoretical codes showed that, regarding priority participation strategies were multi-actor co-management and co-design. In line with this, other reviews [17,18,53] also report that co-design, co-creation, and stakeholder engagement (community members, institutions, NGOs, authorities) are pivotal in implementing activities to enhance urban resilience. The consistency of these findings, despite methodological and geographical variations, indicates a high coherence and sufficiency of the data. In these reviews, participatory strategies are commonly operationalized through Nature-based Solutions (NbSs) as tools for promoting sustainable development, providing ecological benefits for urban resilience.

Within the framework of Nature-based Solutions (NBSs), the types of green public spaces analyzed revealed a wide diversity corresponding to different scales, urban needs, and urban resilience strategies. At the micro scale, these include pocket parks, schoolyards, and urban gardens, while at the larger scale, Urban Green Infrastructure (IGI), such as corridors, parks, and streets, predominates—a finding also identified in other systematic reviews [14,17]. Other authors [53] also argue that reliable evaluations should be developed at broader scales to achieve more comprehensive environmental management in urban space, a matter that led the present research to not only consider public parks as the sole units of analysis.

Regarding the empirical findings of the studies, the present review shows that transformative urban resilience in green public spaces is built through a combination of factors, driven globally; however, its conceptualization and implementation differ significantly according to sociocultural and governance contexts. For instance, cities in high-income countries often frame urban resilience through technological innovation, advanced infrastructure, and institutional preparedness, whereas many cities in the Global South emphasize community-based adaptations and socio-environmental coping mechanisms. Likewise, approaches to collaborative participation diverge notably: in some contexts, public engagement in urban planning is formalized through institutional consultative mechanisms, while in others, it emerges as grassroots and informal civic action in public spaces [1].

Across regions, numerous cases illustrate how collaborative participation underpins urban resilience strategies. In North America, initiatives integrated socio-ecological planning [54,55] reflect a trend toward multidimensional models linking resilience with equity and inclusive governance. Oceania presents culturally grounded approaches that embraced multicultural co-learning, indigenous knowledge, and digital tools for participatory planning [56,57,58,59,60], while Pacific islands mobilize traditional networks for recovery [61], despite persistent challenges in governance and equity [62,63,64]. In Asia, resilience studies often apply advanced quantitative tools (e.g., MGWR, Bayesian models), revealing patterns of territorial inequality and social vulnerability [65,66,67,68,69]. Yet, collaborative participation remains underrepresented in this region’s frameworks. African examples emphasize community-driven responses under constrained conditions, highlighting the relevance of informal governance in resilience-building [70,71]. Europe stands out for participatory strategies, anchored in comprehensive, multi-level resilience planning [72,73]. Latin American cases demonstrate how community participation, risk education, and critical infrastructure integration support multidimensional resilience in contexts of high inequality [74,75]. These regional contrasts reinforce the argument that participatory urban resilience is deeply context-dependent.

The objectives of the studies, which on one hand emphasize community action and social cohesion, and on the other, focus on NbSs and UGI, are relevant. Some studies underscore social cohesion as a social-dimension indicator that yields tangible improvements in urban space [14,17,18,19,20,53]. The study of NbSs is a recurrent strategy across the systematic reviews examined. The ecological component—evidenced through UGI as a key domain of study and intervention—emerges consistently, as previously noted.

With respect to theoretical approaches to urban resilience, the socio-ecological perspective is among the most prominent globally. Other systematic reviews [14,19] also emphasize this perspective, which intersects social dynamics with green infrastructure, proving influential in guiding urban transformation. The relationship between urban resilience and collaborative participation indicates a paradigmatic shift toward more community-centered and inclusive models. The literature suggests that transformative urban resilience cannot be effectively realized without deep participatory processes that involve communities in the co-production and governance of urban spaces. This linkage implies that sustainable urban transformation must be proactive and sustained over time, involving not only physical or institutional modifications but also a continuous reconfiguration of social and political relations that underpin the city—where participation becomes a strategic component for achieving durable change.

At the same time, this theoretical predominance reveals obstacles such as limited political will, resource constraints, and conflicts between public and private interests, which may curtail the effectiveness of participatory strategies and the articulation across physical, ecological, social, and technological dimensions—risking merely symbolic or superficial outcomes. There are also indications of multi-level governance. Related reviews highlight urban governance [18] and, in some cases, local governance [14] as crucial for implementing urban plans. Within the NbS agenda, some studies [17] propose governance models specifically aligned with the development and implementation of NbSs.

Concerning the empirical findings across studies, the present review shows that the consistency regarding co-management and multi-stakeholder co-design, despite methodological and geographical variations, indicated high coherence and data sufficiency. Similarly, nature-based solutions (NbSs) emerge as a particularly relevant finding in studies on transformative resilience, but institutional or governance barriers are addressed as contextual limitations, rather than as contradictory evidence. Issues such as social equity, cultural identity [23,30,46] and collective memory, institutional innovations [42,48,49], and planned densification in green spaces [31,37] are less prominent, reflecting an emerging connection and generally low confidence due to insufficient data sufficiency.

Turning to the methodological codes, this review found marked diversity, with qualitative, quantitative, and mixed designs and a wide array of instruments (interviews, on-site/online surveys, GIS, sensors, etc.). Other systematic reviews likewise report the prominence of case studies as a means to analyze how social participation shapes the implementation of resilient urban strategies. However, the limited accessibility of instruments and datasets constrains replicability and systematic comparison across urban contexts, hindering the standardization of instruments and the operational use of dimensions and indicators in transformative urban resilience research.

Regarding the dimensions of transformative urban resilience, the social dimension occupies a central position, typically operationalized through indicators such as citizen participation, sense of belonging, community cohesion, and institutional trust. The ecological dimension is partially incorporated—through socio-ecological resilience, ecological connectivity, biodiversity, and environmental quality—suggesting that urban ecology is not consistently treated as a primary analytical axis. The technological dimension also shows limited presence, with relatively scarce use of emerging technologies (digital collaborative platforms, mobile applications, GIS tools) in participation or resilient management processes. While this underscores the value placed on community interaction as the basis for building urban resilience, it may introduce an imbalance relative to other dimensions (physical, ecological, economic, technological). There is a tendency to address dimensions in isolation, which can impede their transformative synergy. underscore the importance of the environmental, infrastructural, economic, human, social, and institutional dimensions, pointing out gaps in the literature and urging the integration of cultural, social, and technological aspects [13].

Notably, other systematic reviews concur on the multidimensional nature of resilience—social, environmental, governance—and additionally point to cultural, educational, religious, and technological aspects. The technological dimension also shows limited presence, with relatively scarce use of emerging technologies (digital collaborative platforms, mobile applications, GIS tools) in participation or resilient management processes. While this underscores the value placed on community interaction as the basis for building urban resilience, it may introduce an imbalance relative to other dimensions (physical, ecological, economic, technological). Some studies [76] advocate for synergies between technology and ecology, highlighting the need for inclusive, interdisciplinary collaboration.

Urban resilience in green public spaces is built through a combination of community, institutional, social, and environmental factors; that is, through a multidimensional approach that emphasizes social participation, urban green infrastructure (UGI), equity, culture, and collaborative governance. Therefore, the SGPENVE framework was applied, which synthesizes the key dimensions most frequently associated with transformative urban resilience in green public spaces, identified through an extensive literature review. This review confirmed that the social, environmental, and governance dimensions constitute central analytical axes within this study.

This raises the question of how to strengthen underrepresented dimensions in research without disconnecting them from collaborative participation. Notably, other systematic reviews concur on the multidimensional nature of resilience—social, environmental, governance—and additionally point to cultural, educational, religious, and technological aspects. This situation could serve as a point of interest in addition to future research, for practices and policies that promote resilient and participatory urban planning (PNVU) [4].

5. Conclusions

Transformative urban resilience has been pursued worldwide; however, its conceptualization and implementation differ significantly across socio-cultural and governance contexts. Rather than providing an exhaustive continental overview, this study has synthesized prominent global variations that shaped the construction of its integrative framework. Any effective framework must account for territorial, social, and political specificities that shape public engagement practices. In the cases analyzed, the consideration of social, governance, physical, environmental, and economic dimensions was repeatedly observed. These integrative considerations (such as the proposed SGPENVE framework) would allow for better planning and design of urban strategies that address all the needs of cities, avoiding gaps and situations that hinder sustainable development.

This global synthesis ultimately substantiates the need for an integrative, comparative perspective—justifying the contribution of this systematic review—and provides a robust foundation for advancing both theoretical and practical understandings of how collaborative participation enhances transformative urban resilience.

Among the most common and significant participation strategies were co-management, developed in Europe and the Americas, and multi-stakeholder co-design, documented as fundamental practices for strengthening collaborative governance and generating innovation in urban planning, also in Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Alongside these, Nature-based Solutions (NbSs) are emerging as widely implemented interventions in green public spaces.

Based on the studies analyzed in this review and the contrast with other literature reviews on urban resilience, a shared conclusion emerges: the social dimension—operationalized through participation and collaboration among diverse societal actors, social cohesion, co-design, and co-management—is central to improving urban resilience. When these actions are applied to the urban ecological component, particularly Urban Green Infrastructure, they reinforce multidimensional interventions. Although culture and technology remain comparatively under-considered, current global trends urge their integration into solution frameworks aimed at achieving a more sustainable quality of life. These strategies do not operate in isolation but are enhanced by institutional innovations—such as urban laboratories and public-private partnerships—that open new avenues for participation. This highlights the heterogeneity of forms of participation in urban contexts, often overlapping in the same place and achieving positive results. If these actions were better coordinated, they would have a much greater positive impact on urban transformation.

Regarding the theoretical perspectives and research methods that characterize these studies, a socio-ecological approach to resilience predominates. Methodologically, they present limitations in the formal assessment of biases and in comparative depth. In short, effective, transformative urban resilience arises from the convergence of green infrastructure, collaborative participation, equity, culture, technology, and multi-level governance, supported by accessible, standardized methodologies that facilitate replication and comparative learning across contexts.