Abstract
This introductory article of the special issue on ‘Geographies of water, energy and waste service coproduction’ explores the implications of coproducing these services in terms of both accessibility and environmental sustainability. According to a socio-natural standpoint, provision extent and resources metabolized by the services are equally regarded employing a threefold conceptual framework integrating actor/flow and area fields. A rich variety of service coproduction geographies in terms of actors involved, resources mobilized and urban spaces covered emerges. More importantly, coproduction of water, energy and waste services proves to leverage on both service accessibility and environmental sustainability of the related resources.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. Erik Swyngedouw makes this distinction clear while referring to the work of Graham and Marvin (Citation2001) about Splintering Urbanism. To support their thesis, Graham and Marvin refer to information and communication technologies as ‘cyberspace divides’.
2. Decentralized systems for supplying energy and disposing of rainwater and wastewater, for example, are not a novelty. Traditional, grassroots socio-technological systems are often off-grid (see, for example, Jaglin Citation2012; Allen et al. Citation2016). However, since recently, ‘the liberalization of network industries, growing concerns for the use of environmental resources and impacts on these resources, new financial arrangements and the increasing individualization of lifestyles are all challenging the supremacy of centralized solutions and promoting the development of alternative technological systems at a more local scale’ (Coutard, Ruthgerford, and Florentin Citation2014, 91).
3. Just to cite some significant examples of how service co-production in the Global South is addressed in literature: Ostrom (Citation1996), Batley (Citation2006), Bovaird (Citation2007), Mitlin (Citation2008), Peters and Muraleedharan (Citation2008), Allen (Citation2010, 2012), Batley and Mcloughlin (Citation2010), Moretto (Citation2010), Booth (Citation2011), McDonald and Ruiters (Citation2012), Albrechts (Citation2013), McGranahan (Citation2013), McMillan, Spronk, and Caswell (Citation2014).
4. Materials is intended here in a wider sense comprising, according to political ecology, both nature and second nature (Smith Citation1984).
5. For example, in the case of waste delivery, the observation extends to the nature of waste products that the urban service collects and, in turn, discharges. In the service scheme, the waste product collected and the waste product discharged by the service may or not coincide, as the material collected could be further processed/transformed before its final discharge.
6. In the first case, the focus is on the organizational and technical aspects of public service co-production (very often non territorialized nor conventionally networked services) and, partially, on the institutional systems and normative frameworks favouring this service model (see for example Bovaird and Loeffler Citation2012; Jakobsen Citation2013; Verschuere, Brandsen and Petsoff Citation2012; Osborne and Strokosch Citation2013).The spatial dimension is almost totally absent. In the case of service coproduction in the Global South, the few existing pieces of research seem to present a much narrower and selective approach (see for example Mitlin Citation2008; Peters and Muraleedharan Citation2008; McGranahan Citation2013; Allen 2012; McMillan, Spronk, and Caswell Citation2014).The socio-spatial dimension is not systematically included in the analysis of their governance architecture or their effectiveness in producing structural service improvements.
7. This analysis of the circulatory processes concerning the flow channelled by the coproduced service is in line with the observation proposed by Girardet (Citation1992) in The Gaia Atlas of Cities.
8. However, Button (Citation2016) stresses also that the rainwater collection performed in Mumbai is controversial since the water retained is used for watering the gardens, while the water made infiltrating to recharge groundwater contributes to the operating conditions needed by the water bottling plant.
9. The basic technical services are tangible expression of the relation between a society and a certain space. In Raffestin (Citation1980), space and territory are not synonymous but space becomes territory when concerned with the practices of the actors. Sacks (Citation1986, 19) defines human territoriality as ‘spatial strategy to affect, influence, or control resources and people, by controlling area’.
Graham, S., and S. Marvin. 2001. Splintering Urbanism. Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition. London: Routledge. Jaglin, S. 2012. “Services en réseaux et villes africaines: L’universalité par d’autres voies?” L’espace Geographique 41 (1): 51,67. Allen, A., P. Hofmann, J. Mukherjee, and A. Walnycki. 2016. “Water trajectories through non-networked infrastructure: Insights from peri-urban Dar es Salaam, Cochabamba and Kolkata.” Urban Research & Practice. doi:10.1080/17535069.2016.1197306. Coutard, O., J. Ruthgerford, and D. Florentin. 2014. “Towards hybrid socio-technical solutions for water and energy provision.” In Innovations for Sustainable Development, edited by J. Y. Grosclaude, R. K. Pachauri, and L. Tubiana. Delhi: TERI Press. Ostrom, E. 1996. “Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy and development.” World Development 24 (6): 1073–1087. doi:10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X. Batley, R. 2006. “Engaged or divorced? Cross-service findings on government relations with non-state service-providers.” Public Administration and Development 26 (3): 241–251. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-162X. Bovaird, T. 2007. “Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Coproduction of Public Services.” Public Administration Review 67 (5): 846–860. doi:10.1111/puar.2007.67.issue-5. Mitlin, D. 2008. “With and beyond the state – co-production as a route to political influence, power and transformation for grassroots organizations.” Environment and Urbanization 20 (2): 339–360. doi:10.1177/0956247808096117. Peters, D. H., and V. R. Muraleedharan. 2008. “Regulating India’s health services: To what end? What future?” Social Science & Medicine 66: 2133–2144. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.01.037. Allen, A. 2010. “Neither Rural nor Urban: Service Delivery Options That Work for the Peri-urban Poor.” In Peri-urban Water and Sanitation Services. Policy, Planning and Methods, edited by M. Kurian and P. McCarney. London: Springer. Batley, R., and C. Mcloughlin. 2010. “Engagement with Non-State Service Providers in Fragile States: Reconciling State-Building and Service Delivery.” Development Policy Review 28 (2): 131–154. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7679.2010.00478.x. Moretto, L. 2010. “Coproduction du service d’eau et recomposition de l’espace intra urbain dans la périphérie Sud de Caracas.” Espaces et sociétés 143 (3): 81–99. doi:10.3917/esp.143.0081. Booth, D. 2011. “Towards a theory of local governance and public goods provision.” IDS Bulletin 42 (2): 11–21. doi:10.1111/idsb.2011.42.issue-2. McDonald, D., and G. Ruiters. 2012. Alternatives to privatization: Public options for essential services in the global South. South Africa: Routledge - HSRC - LeftWord Books. Albrechts, L. 2013. “Reframing Strategic Spatial Planning by Using a Coproduction Perspective.” Planning Theory 12 (1): 46–63. McGranahan, G. 2013. “Community-Driven Sanitation Improvement in Deprived Urban Neighbourhoods. Meeting the Challenges of Local Collective Action, Co-Production, Affordability and a Trans-Sectoral Approach.” Research Report. McMillan, R., S. Spronk, and C. Caswell. 2014. “Popular participation, equity, and co-production of water and sanitation services in Caracas, Venezuela.” Water International 39 (2): 201–215. doi:10.1080/02508060.2014.886844. Smith, N. 1984. Uneven Development: Nature, Capital and the Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Bovaird, T., and E. Loeffler. 2012. “From Engagement to Co-production: The Contribution of Users and Communities to Outcomes and Public Value.” Voluntas 23 (4): 1119–1138. doi:10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6. Jakobsen, M. 2013. “Can Government Initiatives Increase Citizen Coproduction? Results of a Randomized Field Experiment.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23 (1): 27–54. doi:10.1093/jopart/mus036. Verschuere, B., T. Brandsen, and V. Pestoff. 2012. “Co-production: The State of the Art in Research and the Future Agenda.” Voluntas 23 (4): 1083–1101. doi:10.1007/s11266-012-9307-8. Osborne, S. P., and K. Strokosch. 2013. “It takes Two to Tango? Understanding the Co-production of Public Services by Integrating the Services Management and Public Administration Perspectives.” British Journal of Management 24: S31–S47. doi:10.1111/bjom.2013.24.issue-s1. Mitlin, D. 2008. “With and beyond the state – co-production as a route to political influence, power and transformation for grassroots organizations.” Environment and Urbanization 20 (2): 339–360. doi:10.1177/0956247808096117. Peters, D. H., and V. R. Muraleedharan. 2008. “Regulating India’s health services: To what end? What future?” Social Science & Medicine 66: 2133–2144. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.01.037. McGranahan, G. 2013. “Community-Driven Sanitation Improvement in Deprived Urban Neighbourhoods. Meeting the Challenges of Local Collective Action, Co-Production, Affordability and a Trans-Sectoral Approach.” Research Report. McMillan, R., S. Spronk, and C. Caswell. 2014. “Popular participation, equity, and co-production of water and sanitation services in Caracas, Venezuela.” Water International 39 (2): 201–215. doi:10.1080/02508060.2014.886844. Girardet, H. 1992. The Gaia Atlas of Cities. London: Gaia Books. Button, C. 2016. “The co-production of a constant water supply in Mumbai’s middle class apartments.” Urban Research & Practice. doi:10.1080/17535069.2016.1197305. Raffestin, C. 1980. Pour Une Géographie Du Pouvoir. Paris: Librairies techniques. Sack, R. (Ed.). 1986. “Human Territoriality.” In Human Territoriality: Its Theory and History. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press. Additional information
Funding
Part of this work was supported by the Institut Bruxellois pour la Recherche Scientifique under the grant Prospective Research for Brussels [2012].