Urban service co-production and technology: nine key issues

References

• Ahlers R, Cleaver F, Rusca M, Schwartz K. 2014. Informal space in the urban waterscape: disaggregation and co-production of water services. Water Altern. 7(1):1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akrich M. 2010. Comment décrire les objets techniques ? [How to describe technical objects?]. Techniques & Culture. 54–55:205–219. doi:10.4000/tc.4999.
   Google Scholar
• Allen A. 2013. Water provision for and by the peri-urban poor. Public-community partnerships or citizens coproduction? In: Vojnovic J, editor. Urban sustainability: a global perspective. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press; p. 309–340.
   Google Scholar
• Bovaird T. 2007. Beyond engagement and participation: user and community coproduction of public services. Public Adm Rev. 67(5):846–860. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x.
   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. 23(4):1119–1138. doi:10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandsen T, Honingh M. 2018. Definitions of co-production and co-creation. In: Brandsen T, Steen T, Verschure B, editors. Co-production and co-creation: engaging citizens in public services. New York (NY): Routledge; p. 33–44.
   Google Scholar
• Button C. 2017. The co-production of constant water supply in Mumbai’s middle class apartments. Urban Res Pract. 10(1):102–119. doi:10.1080/17535069.2016.1197305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cabrera JE. 2015. Fragmentation urbaine à travers les réseaux techniques [Urban fragmentation through technical networks] [ dissertation]. Liege: Université de Liège.
   Google Scholar
• Cambridge Dictionary. 2022. Meaning of interface in English. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; [accessed 2022 Jan 05] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/interface
   Google Scholar
• Chatterjee S, Kundu R. this issue. Co-production or contested production? Complex arrangements of actors, infrastructure, and practices in everyday water provisioning in a small town in India. Int J Urban Sustain Dev. 14(1):196–208. doi:10.1080/19463138.2020.1852408.
   Google Scholar
• Coutard O, Rutherford J, editors. 2015. Beyond the networked city: infrastructure reconfigurations and urban change in the North and South. London (UK): Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Croese S. 2020. Introduction: Africa’s urban challenge. In: Marrengane N, Croese S, editors. Reframing the urban challenge in Africa: knowledge co-production from the south. London (UK): Routledge, London; p. 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Faldi G, Rosati FN, Moretto L, Teller J. 2019. A comprehensive framework for analyzing co-production of urban water and sanitation services in the Global South. Water Int. 44(8):886–918. doi:10.1080/02508060.2019.1665967.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faldi G, Rosati FN, Moretto L, Teller J. 2020. A multi-perspective discourse on the sustainability of water and sanitation service co-production in Global South cities. In: Martínez J, Mikkelsen C, Phillips R, editors. Handbook of quality of life and sustainability. Cham: Springer (Springer International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life); p. 53–80 doi:10.1007/978-3-030-50540-0_4.
   Google Scholar
• Faldi G, Fisher A, Moretto L. 2021. Five points for conceptualising place-based approaches to African urban planning: an introduction. In: Faldi G, Fisher A, Moretto L, editors. African cities through local eyes: experiments in place-based planning and design. Cham: Springer (The Urban Book Series); p. 1–27 doi:10.1007/978-3-030-84906-1_1.
   Google Scholar
• Freire P. 1972. Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth (UK): Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Furlong K. 2014. STS beyond the “modern infrastructure ideal”: extending theory by engaging with infrastructure challenges in the South. Technol Soc. 38:139–147. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.04.001.
   Google Scholar
• Guillou E 2022. En réseau - Hors réseau: configurations électriques émergentes dans les aires d’urbanisation diffuse (Sénégal et Tanzanie) [Networked - non-networked: emerging electricity configurations in diffuse urban areas (Senegal and Tanzania)] [ dissertation]. Paris: Université Paris-Est/Laboratoire Techniques Territoires et Sociétés (LATTS).
   Google Scholar
• Graham S, McFarlane C, editors. 2014. Infrastructural lives: urban infrastructure in context. London (UK): Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gramsci A. 1975. . In: Quaderni del carcere [Prison notebooks]. Turin: Einaudi.
   Google Scholar
• Gutberlet J. 2015. More inclusive and cleaner cities with waste management co-production: insights from participatory epistemologies and methods. Habitat Int. 46:234–243. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.10.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han SS. this issue. Co-producing an urban mobility service? The role of actors, policies, and technology in the boom and bust of dockless bike-sharing programmes. Int J Urban Sustain Dev. 14(1):209–224. doi:10.1080/19463138.2020.1772268.
   Google Scholar
• Ilito-Boozi JP, Moretto L. 2021. Motivations to co-produce water, hygiene and sanitation services in the peri-urban area of Kinshasa. In: Faldi G, Fisher A, Moretto L, editors. African cities through local eyes. Cham: Springer (The Urban Book Series); p. 265–286.
   Google Scholar
• Illich I. 2009. Tools for Conviviality. London: Marion Boyars.
   Google Scholar
• Jaglin S. 2012. Networked services and features of African urbanization: other path toward globalization. Espace géogr. 41(1):51–67. doi:10.3917/eg.411.0051.
   Google Scholar
• Jaglin S. 2014. Regulating service delivery in southern cities: rethinking urban heterogeneity. In: Parnell S, Oldfield S, editors. A Routledge handbook on cities of the Global South. London (UK): Routledge; p. 434–447.
   Google Scholar
• Jakobsen M. 2013. Can government initiatives increase citizen coproduction? Results of a randomized field experiment. J Public Adm Res Theory. 23(1):27–54. doi:10.1093/jopart/mus036.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaspers S, Steen T. 2021. Does co-production lead to the creation of public value? Balancing the dimensions of public value creation in urban mobility planning. Adm Soc. 53(4):619–646. doi:10.1177/0095399720957613.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joshi A, Moore M. 2004. Institutionalised co-production: unorthodox public service delivery in challenging environments. J Dev Stud. 40(4):31–49. doi:10.1080/00220380410001673184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lember V. 2018. The increasing role of digital technologies in co-production and co-creation. In: Brandsen T, Steen T, Verschure B, editors. Co-production and co-creation: engaging citizens in public services. New York (NY): Routledge; p. 115–127.
   Google Scholar
• McMillan R, Spronk S, Caswell C. 2014. Popular participation, equity, and co-production of water and sanitation services in Caracas, Venezuela. Water Int. 39(2):201–215. doi:10.1080/02508060.2014.886844.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meehan KM. 2014. Tool-power: water infrastructure as wellsprings of state power. Geoforum. 57:215–224. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.08.005.
   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. Environ Urban. 20(2):339–360. doi:10.1177/0956247808096117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitlin D, Bartlett S. 2018. Editorial: co-production – key ideas. Environ Urban. 30(2):355–366. doi:10.1177/0956247818791931.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monstadt J. 2009. Conceptualizing the political ecology of urban infrastructures: insights from technology and urban studies. Environ Plan A. 41(8):1924–1942. doi:10.1068/a4145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moretto L, Faldi G, Ranzato M, Rosati FN, Ilito Boozi J-P, Teller J. 2018. Challenges of water and sanitation service co-production in the Global South. Environ Urban. 30(2):425–443. doi:10.1177/0956247818790652.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moretto L, Ranzato M. 2017. A socio-natural standpoint to understand coproduction of water, energy and waste services. Urban Res Pract. 10(1):1–21. doi:10.1080/17535069.2016.1201528.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moss T, Guy S, Marvin S, Medd W. 2011. Intermediaries and the reconfiguration of urban Infrastructures: an introduction. In: Guy S, Marvin S, Medd W, Moss T, editors. Shaping urban infrastructures: intermediaries and the governance of socio-technical networks. Abingdon (UK): Earthscan; p. 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Nabatchi T, Sancino A, Sicilia M. 2017. Varieties of participation in public services: the who, when, and what of coproduction. Public Adm Rev. 77(5):766–776. doi:10.1111/puar.12765.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ojeda L, Bacigalupe G, Pino A. 2018. Co-production after an urban forest fire: post-disaster reconstruction of an informal settlement in Chile. Environ Urban. 30(2):537–556. doi:10.1177/0956247818790731.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostrom E. 1996. Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development. World Dev. 24(6):1073–1087. doi:10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pestoff V. 2014. Collective action and the sustainability of co-production. Public Manag Rev. 16(3):383–401. doi:10.1080/14719037.2013.841460.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pestoff V, Brandsen T, Verschuere B, editors. 2012. New public governance, the third sector and co-production. London (UK): Routledge.
   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 Res Pract. 10(1):86–101. doi:10.1080/17535069.2016.1154101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putra AL, Martinez J, Verplanke J. this issue. Integrating climate service co-production into spatial planning in Jakarta. Int J Urban Sustain Dev. 14(1):225–241. doi:10.1080/19463138.2020.1843043.
   Google Scholar
• Ranzato M, Moretto L. 2018. Co-production and the environment. In: Brandsen T, Steen T, Verschuere B, editors. Co-production and co-creation: engaging citizens in public services. New York (NY): Routledge; p. 180–190.
   Google Scholar
• Rateau M, Jaglin S. this issue. Co-production of access and hybridisation of configurations: a socio-technical approach to urban electricity in Cotonou and Ibadan. Int J Urban Sustain Dev. 14(1):180–195. doi:10.1080/19463138.2020.1780241.
   Google Scholar
• Rosati FN, Moretto L, Teller J. this issue. An incremental approach to co-production: reading transformations of urban systems and water and sanitation infrastructures. Int J Urban Sustain Dev. 14(1):162–179. doi:10.1080/19463138.2020.1818085.
   Google Scholar
• Schaer C, Hanonou EK. 2017. The real governance of disaster risk management in peri-urban Senegal: delivering flood response services through co-production. Prog Dev Stud. 17(1):38–53. doi:10.1177/1464993416674301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith H, Garcia Ferrari SG, Medero GM, Rivera H, Coupé F, Mejía Escalante ME, Castro Mera W, Montoya Correa CA, Abiko A, Marinho FAM. this issue. Exploring appropriate socio technical arrangements for the co-production of landslide risk management strategies in informal neighbourhoods in Colombia and Brazil. Int J Urban Sustain Dev. 14(1):242–263. doi:10.1080/19463138.2021.1872082.
   Google Scholar
• [UN] United Nations. 2016. Habitat III policy paper 9 – urban services and technology; [accessed 2022 Feb 23]. http://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/PU9-HABITAT-III-POLICY-PAPER.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Van Eijk C, Gascó M. 2018. Unravelling the co-producers: who are they and what motivations do they have? In: Brandsen T, Steen T, Verschure B, editors. Co-production and co-creation: engaging citizens in public services. New York (NY): Routledge; p. 63–76.
   Google Scholar
• Van Eijk C, Steen T. 2014. Why people co-produce: analysing citizens’ perceptions on co-planning engagement in health care services. Public Manag Rev. 16(3):358–382. doi:10.1080/14719037.2013.841458.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Vliet B, Chappels H, Shove E. 2005. Infrastructure of consumption: environmental innovations in the utility of industries. London (UK): Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Van Vliet B. 2012. Sustainable innovation in network-bound systems: implications for the consumption of water, wastewater and electricity services. J Environ Policy Plan. 14(3):263–278. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2012.702563.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vincent K, Daly M, Scannell C, Leathes B. 2018. What can climate services learn from theory and practice of co-production? Clim Serv. 12:48–58. doi:10.1016/j.cliser.2018.11.001.
   Google Scholar
• Watson V. 2014. Co-production and collaboration in planning – the difference. Plan Theory Pract. 15(1):62–76. doi:10.1080/14649357.2013.866266.
   Google Scholar
• Watson V. 2016. Shifting approaches to planning theory: global North and South. Urban Plan. 1(4):32–41. doi:10.17645/up.v1i4.727.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu C, Brown R, Morison P. 2012. Co-governing decentralised water systems: an analytical framework. Water Sci Technol. 66(12):2731–2736. doi:10.2166/wst.2012.489.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar