A comprehensive framework for analyzing co-production of urban water and sanitation services in the Global South

References

• Ahlers, R., Cleaver, F., Rusca, M., & Schwartz, K. (2014). Informal space in the urban waterscape: Disaggregation and co-production of water services. Water Alternatives, 7(1), 1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ali, M., & Stevens, L. (2009). Integrated approaches to promoting sanitation: A case study of Faridpur, Bangladesh. Desalination, 248(1–3), 1–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ali, S. I. (2010). Alternatives for safe water provision in urban and peri-urban slums. Journal of Water and Health, 8(4), 720–734.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen, A. (2010). Neither rural nor urban: Service delivery options that work for the peri-urban poor. In M. Kurian & P. McCarney (Eds.), Peri-urban water and sanitation services (pp. 27–61). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, A. (2013). Water provision for and by the peri-urban poor. Public-community partnerships or citizens coproduction? In J. Vojnovic (Ed.), Urban sustainability: A global perspective (pp. 309–340). East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, A., Davila, J. D., & Hofmann, P. (2006a). The peri-urban water poor: Citizens or consumers? Environment and Urbanization, 18(2), 333–351.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen, A., Davila, J. D., & Hofmann, P. (2006b). Governance of water and sanitation services for the peri-urban poor. London: The Development Planning Unit, University College London.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, A., Hofmann, P., Mukherjee, J., & Walnycki, A. (2017). Water trajectories through non-networked infrastructure: Insights from peri-urban Dar es Salaam, Cochabamba and Kolkata. Urban Research & Practice, 10(1), 22–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2004). A framework to analyze the robustness of social ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society, 9(1), 18. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art18
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andreasen, M. H., & Møller-Jensen, L. (2016). Beyond the networks: Self-help services and post settlement network extensions in the periphery of Dar es Salaam. Habitat International, 53, 39–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakker, K. (2003). Archipelagos and networks: Urbanization and water privatization in the South. The Geographical Journal, 169(4), 328–341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakker, K., Kooy, M., Shofiani, N. E., & Martijn, E.-J. (2008). Governance failure: Rethinking the institutional dimensions of urban water supply to poor households. World Development, 36(10), 1891–1915.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, S. R., & Smith, N. J. (2008). Understanding change in political science: On the need to bring space into theoretical positions and empirical analyses. Political Studies Review, 6, 191–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker, S., Naumann, M., & Moss, T. (2017). Between coproduction and commons: Understanding initiatives to reclaim urban energy provision in Berlin and Hamburg. Urban Research & Practice, 10(1), 63–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2012). From engagement to co-production: The contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 1119–1138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bovaird, T., Stoker, G., Jones, T., Loeffler, E., & Pinilla Roncancio, M. (2016). Activating collective co-production of public services: Influencing citizens to participate in complex governance mechanisms in the UK. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(1), 47–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brudney, J. L., & England, R. E. (1983). Toward a definition of the coproduction concept. Public Administration Review, 43(1), 59–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burra, S., Patel, S., & Kerr, T. (2003). Community-designed, built and managed toilet blocks in Indian cities. Environment and Urbanization, 15(2), 11–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Button, C. (2017). The co-production of a constant water supply in Mumbai’s middle class apartments. Urban Research & Practice, 10(1), 102–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cabrera, J. E. (2015). Fragmentation urbaine à travers les réseaux techniques [Urban fragmentation across technical networks] ( Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from https://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/180007.
   Google Scholar
• Cepiku, D., & Giordano, F. (2014). Co-production in developing countries: Insights from the community health workers experience. Public Management Review, 16(3), 317–340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coutard, O. (2008). Placing splintering urbanism: Introduction. Geoforum, 39, 1815–1820.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coutard, O., & Rutherford, J. (Eds.). (2015). Beyond the networked city: Infrastructure reconfigurations and urban change in the North and South. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• De, I., & Nag, T. (2016). Dangers of decentralisation in urban slums: A comparative study of water supply and drainage service delivery in Kolkata, India. Development Policy Review, 34(2), 253–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dill, B. (2010). Public-public partnerships in urban water provision: The case of Dar es Salaam. Journal of International Development, 22, 611–624.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Domenech, L. (2011). Rethinking water management: From centralised to decentralised water supply and sanitation models. Documents d’Anàlisi Geogràfica, 57(2), 293–310.
   Google Scholar
• Dos Santos, S., Adams, E. A., Neville, G., Wada, Y., de Sherbinin, A., Mullin Bernhardt, E., & Adamo, S. B. (2017). Urban growth and water access in sub-Saharan Africa: Progress, challenges, and emerging research directions. Science of the Total Environment, 607–608, 497–508.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falkenmark, M. (1997). Society’s interaction with the water cycle: A conceptual framework for a more holistic approach. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 42(4), 451–466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernández-Maldonado, A. N. (2008). Expanding networks for the urban poor: Water and telecommunications services in Lima, Peru. Geoforum, 39, 1884–1896.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster, S. R., & Iaione, C. (2019). Ostrom in the city: Design principles and practices for the urban commons. In D. Cole, B. Hudson, & J. Rosenbloom (Eds.), Routledge handbook of the study of the commons (pp. 235–255). Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Frantzeskaki, N., & Loorbach, D. (2010). Towards governing infrasystem transitions. Reinforcing lock-in or facilitating change? Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 77, 1292–1301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furlong, K. (2014). STS beyond the “modern infrastructure ideal”: Extending theory by engaging with infrastructure challenges in the South. Technology in Society, 38, 139–147.
   Google Scholar
• Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31, 1257–1274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S., & Marvin, S. (2001). Splintering urbanism: Networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hegger, D., & van Vliet, B. (2010). End user perspectives on the transformation of sanitary systems. In B. van Vliet, G. Spaargaren, & P. Oosterveer (Eds.), Social perspectives on the sanitation challenge (pp. 203–216). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Heynen, N., Kaika, M., & Swyngedouw, E. (2006). Urban political ecology: Politicizing the production of urban natures. In N. Heynen, M. Kaika, & E. Swyngedouw (Eds.), The nature of cities: Urban political ecology and the politics of urban metabolism (pp. 1–20). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jaglin, S. (2002). The right to water versus cost recovery: Participation, urban water supply and the poor in sub-Saharan Africa. Environment&Urbanization, 14(1), 231–245.
   Google Scholar
• Jaglin, S. (2008). Differentiating networked services in Cape Town: Echoes of splintering urbanism? Geoforum, 39, 1897–1906.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaglin, S. (2012). Networked services and features of African urbanization: Other path toward globalization. L’espace Geographique, 41(1), 51–67.
   Google Scholar
• Joshi, A., & Moore, M. (2004). Institutionalised co-production: Unorthodox public service delivery in challenging environments. Journal of Development Studies, 40(4), 31–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katsongo, K. (2012). Partnership modalities for the management of drinking water in poor urban neighbourhoods: The example of Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo. In M. Robertson (Ed.), Sustainable cities: Local solutions in the Global South (pp. 113–132). Ottawa: Practical Action Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Kjellen, M. (2000). Complementary water systems in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: The case of water vending. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 16(1), 143–154.
   Google Scholar
• Kooy, M., & Bakker, K. (2008). Splintered networks: The colonial and contemporary waters of Jakarta. Geoforum, 39, 1843–1858.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyessi, A. G. (2005). Community-based urban water management in fringe neighbourhoods: The case of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Habitat International, 29, 1–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorrain, D. (2000). Gouverner les villes. Questions pour un agenda de recherche [Governing the cities. Questions for a research agenda]. Pôle Sud, 13, 27–40.
   Google Scholar
• Marlow, D. R., Moglia, M., Cook, S., & Beale, D. J. (2013). Towards sustainable urban water management: A critical reassessment. Water Research, 47, 7150–7161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massoud, M. A., Tarhini, A., & Nasr, J. A. (2009). Decentralized approaches to wastewater treatment and management: Applicability in developing countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 652–659.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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). London: SHARE - London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
   Google Scholar
• McMillan, R., Spronk, S., & Caswell, C. (2014). Popular participation, equity, and co-production of water and sanitation services in Caracas, Venezuela. Water International, 39(2), 201–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Milman, A., & Short, A. (2008). Incorporating resilience into sustainability indicators: An example for the urban water sector. Global Environmental Change, 18, 758–767.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitlin, D. (2008). With and beyond the state – Co-production as a route to political influence, power and transformation for grassroots organizations. Environment&Urbanization, 20(2), 339–360.
   Google Scholar
• Mitlin, D., & Satterthwaite, D. (2013). Urban poverty in the Global South: Scale and nature. Abington: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Monstadt, J. (2009). Conceptualizing the political ecology of urban infrastructures: Insights from technology and urban studies. Environment and Planning A, 41, 1924–1942.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monstadt, J., & Schramm, S. (2013). Beyond the networked city? Suburban constellations in water and sanitation systems. In R. Keil (Ed.), Suburban constellations (pp. 85–94). Berlin: Jovis.
   Google Scholar
• Moretto, L. (2010). Coproduction du service d’eau et recomposition de l’espace intra-urbain dans la périphérie sud de Caracas [Coproduction of water service and recomposition of the intra-urban space in the southern suburbs of Caracas]. Espaces Et Sociétés, 143, 81–99.
   Google Scholar
• Moretto, L., Faldi, G., Ranzato, M., Rosati, F. N., Ilito Boozi, J.-P., & Teller, J. (2018). Challenges of water and sanitation service co-production in the Global South. Environment and Urbanization, 30(2), 425–443.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moretto, L., & Ranzato, M. (2017). A socio-natural standpoint to understand coproduction of water, energy and waste services. Urban Research & Practice, 10(1), 1–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nabatchi, T., Sancino, A., & Sicilia, M. (2017). Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of coproduction. Public Administration Review, 77, 766–776.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagendra, H., & Ostrom, E. (2014). Applying the social-ecological system framework to the diagnosis of urban lake commons in Bangalore, India. Ecology and Society, 19(2), 67. Retrieved from https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss2/art67/
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Weinbaum, R. (2017). A framework for using qualitative comparative analysis for the review of the literature. The Qualitative Report, 22(2), 359–372.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Opryszko, M. C., Huang, H., Soderlund, K., & Schwab, K. J. (2009). Data gaps in evidence-based research on small water enterprises in developing countries. Journal of Water and Health, 7(4), 609–622.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, S. P., & Strokosch, K. (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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073–1087.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325, 419–422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parkinson, J., & Tayler, K. (2003). Decentralized wastewater management in peri-urban areas in low-income countries. Environment&Urbanization, 15(1), 75–90.
   Google Scholar
• Parks, R. B., Baker, P. C., Kiser, L., Oakerson, R., Ostrom, E., Ostrom, V., … Wilson, R. (1981). Consumers as coproducers of public services: Some economic and institutional considerations. Policy Studies Journal, 9(7), 1001–1011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pestoff, V., Brandsen, T., & Verschuere, B. (Eds.). (2012). New public governance, the third sector and co-production. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pflieger, G., & Matthieussent, S. (2008). Water and power in Santiago de Chile: Socio-spatial segregation through network integration. Geoforum, 39, 1907–1921.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pilo’, F. (2017). ‘Co-producing affordability to the electricity service’: A market-oriented response to addressing inequality of access in Rio de Janeiro’s favelas. Urban Research & Practice, 10(1), 86–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pugh, J. (2009). What are the consequences of the ‘spatial turn’ for how we understand politics today? A proposed research agenda. Progress in Human Geography, 33(5), 579–586.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ranzato, M., & Moretto, L. (2018). Co-production and the environment. In T. Brandsen, T. Steen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Co-production and co-creation (pp. 180–190). Oxford: Taylor and Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Rihoux, B., & Lobe, B. (2009). The case for qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): Adding leverage for thick cross-case comparison. In D. S. Byrne & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), The Sage handbook of case-based methods (pp. 222–242). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (Eds.). (2003). Qualitative research practice. A guide for social science students and researchers. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Robertson, M. (Ed.). (2012). Sustainable cities. Ottawa: Practical Action Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Sapkota, M., Arora, M., Malano, H., Moglia, M., Sharma, A., George, B., & Pamminger, F. (2015). An overview of hybrid water supply systems in the context of urban water management: Challenges and opportunities. Water, 7, 153–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schramm, S. (2011). Semicentralised water supply and treatment: Options for the dynamic urban area of Hanoi, Vietnam. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 13(2), 285–314.
   Google Scholar
• Tomlinson, R. (2015). Scalable community-led Slum upgrading: The Indian alliance and community toilet blocks in Pune and Mumbai. Habitat International, 50, 160–168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations. (2016a, February 29). Habitat III policy paper 9 – Urban services and technology [ pdf]. Retrieved from http://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/PU9-HABITAT-III-POLICY-PAPER.pdf
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. (2016b). Habitat III issue papers [ pdf]. Retrieved from http://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/Habitat-III-Issue-Papers-report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• United Nations Human Settlements Programme. (2016). Urbanization and development: emerging futures ( World cities report 2016). Nairobi: UN-Habitat
   Google Scholar
• United Nations World Water Assessment Programme. (2015). The United Nations world water development report 2015: Water for a sustainable world. Paris: UNESCO.
   Google Scholar
• van Eijk, C., & Steen, T. (2014). Why people co-produce: Analysing citizens’ perceptions on co-planning engagement in health care services. Public Management Review, 16(3), 358–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Vliet, B. (2006). Citizen-consumer roles in environmental management of large technological systems. In P.-P.-P. Verbeek & A. Slob (Eds.), User behavior and technology development (pp. 309–318). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• van Vliet, B. (2012). Sustainable innovation in network-bound systems: Implications for the consumption of water, wastewater and electricity Services. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 14(3), 263–278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Vliet, B., Chappels, H., & Shove, E. (2005). Infrastructure of consumption: Environmental innovations in the utility of industries. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Verschuere, B., Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-production: The state of the art in research and the future agenda. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 1083–1101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, R. (2001). The geography of production. In E. Sheppard & T. Barnes (Eds.), A companion to economic geography (pp. 113–132). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Warnken, J., Johnston, N., & Guilding, C. (2009). Exploring the regulatory framework and governance of decentralised water management systems: A strata and community title perspective ( Waterlines Report Series No. 19). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
   Google Scholar
• WHO/UNICEF. (2015). WHO/UNICEF joint monitoring programme for water supply, sanitation and hygiene [ Dataset]. Retrieved from https://washdata.org/data
   Google Scholar
• Wilderer, P. A., & Schreff, D. (2000). Decentralized and centralized wastewater management: A challenge for technology developers. Water Science and Technology, 41(1), 1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winayanti, L., & Lang, H. C. (2004). Provision of urban services in an informal settlement: A case study of Kampung Penas Tanggul, Jakarta. Habitat International, 28(1), 41–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yatmo, Y. A., & Atmodiwirjo, P. (2012). Communal toilet as a collective spatial system in high Density urban Kampung. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 36, 677–687.
   Google Scholar
• Yu, C., Brown, R., & Morison, P. (2012). Co-governing decentralised water systems: An analytical framework. Water Science and Technology, 66(12), 2731–2736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu, C., Farrelly, M., & Brown, R. (2011). Co-production and the governance of decentralised stormwater systems ( Report for The Centre for Water Sensitive Cities). Clayton: Monash University.
   Google Scholar
• Zérah, M.-H. (2008). Splintering urbanism in Mumbai: Contrasting trends in a multilayered society. Geoforum, 39, 1922–1932.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar