Co-Designing Tools for Community Land Access

The ‘Co-designing Tools for Ecological Land Stewardship’ workshop, hosted by Loughborough University’s EcoLandS team and Dark Matter Labs, on November 21st, 2024, was an inspiring convergence of diverse minds, all united by a common goal: advancing ecological land stewardship through collaborative design.

The event brought together a broad set of stakeholders, including policymakers (Canal and River Trust, Greater London Authority, Thames 21, Ceredigion County Council) environmental practitioners (Kite Insights, WildBound), community leaders (Surge Cooperative, Talking Tree, Knowle West Media Centre), researchers (City University, London School of Economics, SOAS, UCL, York University,) and urban design professionals (Meanwhile Space, Smallwood Architects). Stakeholder diversity was crucial in ensuring a holistic approach to understanding the challenges of citizen-led land stewardship, as each participant brought unique insights and perspectives.

We focused on deepening our collective understanding of the challenges of ecological degradation and the lack of accessible frameworks for community-driven ecological land stewardship. The goal was to explore and identify the key educational, informational, and collaborative needs required to support community land stewardship and conceptualise initial functionalities of our proposed EcoLandS tool.

Workshop Structure

The day began with a plenary ice-breaker discussion to establish the context and framings of ecological citizenship in the room. Participants were encouraged to reflect on their experiences and share their definitions. We then brainstormed around three core pillars:

Culture and Education, Data, and Collaboration.

Key Findings:

A trending topic amongst the breakout sessions was the significant barriers that community-led initiatives encounter when collaborating with third parties (such as local councils) and seeking financial support. A primary issue is competition for limited funding, as many community projects are compelled to vie for the same resources and the design of funding schemes bakes in scarcity as a founding principle, transferring the tenets of an extractive economic logic to the social sector. This “scarcity” is compounded by the time-intensive and complex nature of funding searches, with no centralised systems to streamline access or navigation, leaving communities at a disadvantage.

On the day, participants emphasised that funding relationships are often transactional and shaped by power imbalances, where funders dictate the terms. This dynamic can create pressure to achieve measurable, short-term outcomes at the expense of long-term ecological and social values. Projects are often forced to align their goals with funder priorities, which can lead to challenges in translating community visions into language funders understand. Additionally, reporting success and defining what success means remain contentious — how it is measured often fails to capture the complexities of stewardship, focusing instead on outputs rather than emergent, long-term impacts. The need to overhaul funding schemes structured in this way is of utmost concern in current new economic debates (Robinson and Parker, 2025) as exemplified in the case of philanthropic organisation Lankelly Chase’s desire to steward its own ‘ending’ as it recognises that its mode of operation perpetuates the very crises it seeks to dissolve (Andreotti and Nabatu, 2025). Ongoing work conducted through the Un-Edge project (www.un-edge.org) led by Dr Sharon Prendeville has sought to design relational and regenerative economies from within the current philanthropic system.

Participants explained how this way of funding further complicates sustainability. For the most part, grants are additional, meaning that they require defined work streams with goals and outputs that are on top of the day-to-day core running costs, when it is this very day-to-day work that grassroots organisations exist to pursue. Doing so also ignores the need for long-term organisational maintenance and project upkeep. This lack of revenue funding forces projects into a cycle of continually reaffirming their value to funders, creating a sense of dependence. Participants expressed a desire to break free from this interdependence and collectively model more sustainable trust-based and reciprocal financial models.

A recurring challenge is the tension between short-term quick wins and the long-term value inherent in citizen-led land stewardship. Funders often prioritise fast returns, which conflicts with the slow, ongoing nature of ecological care. There are also concerns around conflicts of interest, such as accepting funds from sources that may contribute to environmental degradation in other arenas. Such dilemmas can undermine trust and the integrity of stewardship efforts.

Participants raised concerns about language barriers, not just in the literal sense, but also in the difficulty of communicating ecological priorities to funders who may lack a nuanced understanding of the issues. This disconnect is exacerbated by power relations that position funders as gatekeepers of resources, particularly when funding is distributed based on relationships and access rather than equitable processes.

In the group discussions on the data theme, a key question emerged: how much data is truly needed for land stewardship, and is there an over-reliance on precise measurement? While data is essential for building an evidence base to access funding and inform community asset transfer applications, participants debated whether “data addiction” sidelines experiential learning and direct knowledge of land management practices. Local plans and policy decisions are often driven by data, yet its influence can overshadow the voices of experience. There were concerns about power imbalances between scientific data and local experiences, particularly in the political sphere where data can be misinterpreted or misused. Participants emphasised the need to integrate data with lived and indigenous experiences to provide a richer, more accurate representation of land management needs and redress the abstraction of land issues away from its root causes (colonialism, models of ownership).

Technology was identified as both a challenge and an opportunity. While digitising ecological surveys — often locked in inaccessible PDFs — requires significant effort, this data could become more useful if made more accessible. Participants questioned whether AI and machine learning could help address resource constraints by automating labour-intensive tasks, reducing costs, and amplifying local and cultural knowledge in more equitable ways. Of course, this would require recognition of the interconnected histories of climate and ecological injustices, such as environmental planning that systematically subjects people of colour to greater ecological harms (ref The Just Environments Lab syllabus).

From this a provocative idea emerged: can communities train AI algorithms to reflect their unique needs and experiences? Undoubtedly, yes, is the answer: AI biases are data-driven not inherent in an algorithm. At a minimum, this would require identifying what types of information can be turned into usable data to teach AI tools effectively. More consequentially, to begin to serve the more-than-human communities we find ourselves in, would need a vision and model of AI that abandons the entrenched growth and expansionist economic principles that have precipitated the ecological crisis we find ourselves in. As Morozov comments in his recent essay titled The AI We Deserve,

“”There’s immense value in demonstrating — through real-world prototypes and institutional reforms — that untethering these tools from their market-driven development model is not only possible but beneficial for democracy, humanity, and the planet.”” (Morizov, 2024)

Finally, participants agreed on the importance of being judicious with respect to data and technology: determining the right amount of data to collect, measuring what matters (politically charged a question as that may be), and ensuring that data informs rather than dominates decision-making. Data must be targeted, reliable, and connected to the direct experiences of the communities it is meant to serve. When combined thoughtfully with lived knowledge, data can support more ecologically sensitive, equitable, and culturally informed land management practices.

In Part 2 of this report, we will explore the co-design outputs from the workshop, focusing on the tangible tools and frameworks that emerged from the collaborative discussions. Building on the insights gathered during Part 1, we will delve into the proposed functionalities of the EcoLandS tool, identifying how these can address the challenges of ecological land stewardship. We will also examine how participants contributed to the design of innovative solutions that integrate cultural, educational, and data-driven approaches. Part 2 of the report will provide an overview of the co-design process, highlighting the diverse perspectives and expertise that shaped the final prototypes, as well as the key principles of reciprocity, trust, and long-term ecological care that underpin the design. Through this collaborative approach, we aim to outline actionable steps towards creating a tool that empowers communities to manage and steward their land more effectively, while challenging existing power dynamics and embracing alternative models of care and governance.

Co-Design Outputs of the Workshop

Participants took the insights gathered from the previous breakout sessions and began to conceptualise digital tools and frameworks to address the pressing challenges facing ecological land stewardship. Building upon the themes of collaboration, funding, and data management explored earlier, the co-design phase of the workshop invited participants to brainstorm innovative functionalities for a proposed EcoLandS tool. This tool aims to bridge gaps in current practices, empowering communities to take an active role in stewarding their land while navigating the complexities of funding, knowledge-sharing, and power dynamics.

Participants were broken into three groups which focused on different aspects of ecological land stewardship: collaboration, education and culture, and data. The ‘collaboration’ group proposed a reimagined funding model and the concept of “ancestors of the future” to facilitate community-led ownership and decision-making. This group proposed reimagining the funding model, whereby funders could shift their approach by pitching their offerings to communities, incorporating features like peer reviews and ratings to foster greater transparency and accountability. The group acknowledged the existence of funding opportunities within councils, such as community asset transfer schemes, which remain underutilised due to complex pathways and bureaucratic barriers involved. They proposed that a service design approach could simplify these processes, making them more accessible and user-friendly for communities.

The same group also advocated for the need to establish roles within councils or intermediary organisations to bridge these gaps. These roles, envisioned as “ancestors of the future,” would seem to address systemic shortcomings in the funding ecosystem by defining and embodying the characteristics required to support sustainable, community-led initiatives. Further, a certain mode of co-designing is necessary to adequately bring this view to the table. In our work we’ve drawn on the Bauhaus of the Seas Sails methodology (Seravalli et al, 2023), through design practices conceived to challenge human exceptionalism, as the root cause of the climate crisis.

The group discussion on collaboration identified the need to develop tangible visions of what community-led ownership could look like in practice. A digital tool might involve understanding the challenges, enabling a leap of faith, and facilitating the actualisation of these practices. Integrating a ‘citizen observatory’ component into funding proposals would also empower communities further, equipping them to take an active, informed role in shaping and owning the processes that impact their futures.

The ‘education and culture’ group explored the potential of gamification and digital platforms to engage and empower users, while addressing the digital divide. The group suggested that gamification could make complex concepts more relatable and accessible, especially for younger audiences, by incorporating world-building elements. However, the group also noted the potential for gamification to extend beyond digital realms into real-world applications, such as citizen science initiatives. By integrating incentive structures, the tool could encourage active participation and foster wider community engagement.

Conversely, the group also addressed the digital divide, emphasising the need to support users with e-literacy or those who do not have English as their first language. They suggested integrating tailored learning features within any outputs to create a more inclusive experience, particularly for older users or those from diverse linguistic backgrounds.

Another proposal focused on facilitating knowledge-sharing through a platform that supports skill exchange programs. This could involve partnerships with local schools and citizen science groups, creating opportunities for collaborative learning and mutual exchange of expertise to strengthen community stewardship practices.

The ‘data’ group envisioned a tool that would act as a “data librarian/mediator,” translating complex information and bridging the gap between community aspirations and funder expectations. This group did not settle on a single definitive tool proposal but explored overlapping themes. A key insight was recognising the abundance of existing data, funding opportunities, and pathways, and the need for a tool to connect end users with relevant information and resources. Participants envisioned the tool acting as a “data librarian,” allowing users to input natural language queries to locate land and ecological data sets. While much of this data already exists, its value is often lost due to the difficulty of knowing where to find it.

In the context of funding and community initiatives, the group proposed the tool could serve as a translator, bridging the gap between what communities aim to achieve and the language funders use, focusing on outcomes, impacts, and metrics. Additionally, the tool could facilitate connections, helping users identify and engage with the right people or organisations — whether local authorities, the GLA, or the Canal and River Trust — to advance their projects or visions.

Ultimately, the group envisioned the tool as a mediator, functioning as a concierge, librarian, or “serial networker”. By addressing these well-defined challenges, participants saw a clear opportunity for AI to play a role in enhancing access to information, fostering connections, and translating community aspirations into actionable pathways.

Each group presented their ideas, and the workshop concluded with a voting session to identify the most impactful concepts. The chosen ideas served as the foundation for the next phase of tool development.

Key Insights

Emerging themes from all three breakout sessions highlight the complex dynamics in multi-actor collaboration, funding challenges, and data management in land stewardship projects. Key insights pertain to:

Collaboration Barriers

Often, successful partnerships are hindered by time and capacity constraints, power imbalances, and differing expectations. Tensions often arise from fragmented awareness of roles and goals, and the need for sensitive management of conflicts. The actual needs of community actors to achieve the goals of their interspecies work is significant. The need for greater ecological literacy, shared definitions and knowledge, and clarity on motives further complicates collaboration, making it essential to foster open communication and equitable power structures.

Funding Challenges

Community-led initiatives face intense competition for limited resources, with funders often imposing short-term, measurable outcomes that conflict with the long-term nature of land stewardship. Power imbalances, language barriers, and a focus on outputs rather than ecological impacts contribute to challenges in securing sustainable funding. Participants highlighted the need for more equitable funding models that support long-term ecological and social value.

Data and Evidence

The over-emphasis on precise data is seen as problematic, as it can overshadow the practical experience and local knowledge of land stewards. While data is crucial for securing funding, participants argued for a balance between data-driven decisions and indigenous or community knowledge. Technology, such as AI, offers opportunities to address resource constraints and amplify local experiences, but it also poses challenges in terms of ensuring the data collected is relevant, accurate, and used/solicited ethically.

Power Dynamics and Decision-Making

Both collaboration and funding discussions emphasised the role of power — whether through control of resources or decision-making. Participants stressed the need for transparent processes to ensure that all voices are heard, and that financial and resource-related power is distributed equitably.

Next Steps

The next phase will focus on developing the co-design outputs from the workshop into tangible, actionable service outputs. Building on the innovative ideas generated, we will collaborate with key partners to refine and prototype the EcoLandS tool further. We are always interested in hearing from people whose work aligns with ours.

On behalf of the EcoLandS team, we extend our gratitude to our collaborators, Dark Matter Labs, the Greater London Authority, and Thames 21, for their invaluable contributions to this workshop, as well as our funders, the Royal College of Art’s Ecological Citizens Network, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, and Loughborough University’s Climate and Ecological Transitions Hub, for making this event possible.

By Finn Livingstone, Sharon Prendeville and Anna Grosman

Andreotti, V. Nabatu, H. (2025). Reimagining Endings. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Available at: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/reimagining-endings#

Carlton-Parada, A., Kuzmina, K., Deane, M., and Prendeville, S. (2025). Un:Edge — Design for Relational Economies. Available at: https://www.un-edge.org

The Just Environments Lab. (2023). The Syllabus. Available at: https://www.just-environments.org/the-syllabus

King’s College London. (2024). Rights of Nature Toolkit. Available at: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/legal-clinic/assets/rights-of-nature-toolkit.pdf

Morozov, E. (2024). ‘The AI We Deserve’, Boston Review, 4 December. Available at: https://www.bostonreview.net/forum/the-ai-we-deserve/

Open Systems Lab. (2023). Atlas of Ownership. Available at: https://atlasofownership.org/

Robinson, C. Parker, S. (2025). Emerging Futures. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Available at: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/emerging-futures-joseph-rowntree-foundation

Seravalli et al. (2023). Bauhaus of the Seas Sails. Available at: https://bauhaus-seas.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Bauhaus_of_the_Seas_Sails_co-designtemplate_2023.pdf