coproduction; water; sanitation; urban; services; Global South; socio-technical systems; socioecological
Abstract :
[en] Co-production of water and sanitation services has become a widely discussed option for equitable and efficient service delivery, especially for cities of the Global South. Theoretical conceptualizations of service co-production mainly refer to the public management and governance dimension, while the techno- environmental and spatial dimensions are often disregarded in the literature. This paper proposes a comprehensive framework for analyzing water and sanitation co- production based on cross-cutting literature, from public service management/governance to urban, socio-ecological and socio-technical fields. The proposed framework highlights the categories and factors to be considered when analyzing the background conditions and outcomes of unorthodox service delivery.
Research center :
LEMA - Local Environment Management and Analysis
Disciplines :
Architecture
Author, co-author :
Faldi, Giuseppe
Rosati, Federica Natalia ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département ArGEnCo > LEMA (Local environment management and analysis)
Moretto, Luisa
Teller, Jacques ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département ArGEnCo > Urbanisme et aménagement du territoire
Language :
English
Title :
A comprehensive framework for analyzing co-production of urban water and sanitation services in the Global South
Alternative titles :
[en] Un cadre conceptuel intégré pour analyser la co-production des service d'eau et d'égouttage dans le Sud Global
Publication date :
October 2019
Journal title :
Water International
ISSN :
0250-8060
Publisher :
Taylor & Francis, United Kingdom
Volume :
44
Issue :
8
Pages :
886–918
Peer reviewed :
Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi
Name of the research project :
TYCO-WSS
Funders :
F.R.S.-FNRS - Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique [BE]
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.
Ali, M., & Stevens, L., (2009). Integrated approaches to promoting sanitation: A case study of Faridpur, Bangladesh. Desalination, 248(1–3), 1–7.
Ali, S. I., (2010). Alternatives for safe water provision in urban and peri-urban slums. Journal of Water and Health, 8(4), 720–734.
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.
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.
Allen, A., Davila, J. D., & Hofmann, P., (2006a). The peri-urban water poor: Citizens or consumers? Environment and Urbanization, 18(2), 333–351.
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.
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.
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
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.
Bakker, K., (2003). Archipelagos and networks: Urbanization and water privatization in the South. The Geographical Journal, 169(4), 328–341.
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.
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.
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.
Bovaird, T., (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860.
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.
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.
Brudney, J. L., & England, R. E., (1983). Toward a definition of the coproduction concept. Public Administration Review, 43(1), 59–65.
Burra, S., Patel, S., & Kerr, T., (2003). Community-designed, built and managed toilet blocks in Indian cities. Environment and Urbanization, 15(2), 11–32.
Button, C., (2017). The co-production of a constant water supply in Mumbai’s middle class apartments. Urban Research & Practice, 10(1), 102–119.
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.
Cepiku, D., & Giordano, F., (2014). Co-production in developing countries: Insights from the community health workers experience. Public Management Review, 16(3), 317–340.
Coutard, O., & Rutherford, J., (Eds.). (2015). Beyond the networked city: Infrastructure reconfigurations and urban change in the North and South. London: Routledge.
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.
Dill, B., (2010). Public-public partnerships in urban water provision: The case of Dar es Salaam. Journal of International Development, 22, 611–624.
Domenech, L., (2011). Rethinking water management: From centralised to decentralised water supply and sanitation models. Documents d’Anàlisi Geogràfica, 57(2), 293–310.
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.
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.
Fernández-Maldonado, A. N., (2008). Expanding networks for the urban poor: Water and telecommunications services in Lima, Peru. Geoforum, 39, 1884–1896.
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.
Frantzeskaki, N., & Loorbach, D., (2010). Towards governing infrasystem transitions. Reinforcing lock-in or facilitating change? Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 77, 1292–1301.
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.
Geels, F. W., (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31, 1257–1274.
Graham, S., & Marvin, S., (2001). Splintering urbanism: Networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition. London: Routledge.
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.
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.
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.
Jaglin, S., (2008). Differentiating networked services in Cape Town: Echoes of splintering urbanism? Geoforum, 39, 1897–1906.
Jaglin, S., (2012). Networked services and features of African urbanization: Other path toward globalization. L’espace Geographique, 41(1), 51–67.
Joshi, A., & Moore, M., (2004). Institutionalised co-production: Unorthodox public service delivery in challenging environments. Journal of Development Studies, 40(4), 31–49.
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.
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.
Kooy, M., & Bakker, K., (2008). Splintered networks: The colonial and contemporary waters of Jakarta. Geoforum, 39, 1843–1858.
Kyessi, A. G., (2005). Community-based urban water management in fringe neighbourhoods: The case of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Habitat International, 29, 1–25.
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.
Marlow, D. R., Moglia, M., Cook, S., & Beale, D. J., (2013). Towards sustainable urban water management: A critical reassessment. Water Research, 47, 7150–7161.
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.
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.
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.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M., (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Milman, A., & Short, A., (2008). Incorporating resilience into sustainability indicators: An example for the urban water sector. Global Environmental Change, 18, 758–767.
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.
Mitlin, D., & Satterthwaite, D., (2013). Urban poverty in the Global South: Scale and nature. Abington: Routledge.
Monstadt, J., (2009). Conceptualizing the political ecology of urban infrastructures: Insights from technology and urban studies. Environment and Planning A, 41, 1924–1942.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
Ostrom, E., (1990). Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E., (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073–1087.
Ostrom, E., (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325, 419–422.
Parkinson, J., & Tayler, K., (2003). Decentralized wastewater management in peri-urban areas in low-income countries. Environment&Urbanization, 15(1), 75–90.
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.
Pestoff, V., Brandsen, T., & Verschuere, B., (Eds.). (2012). New public governance, the third sector and co-production. London: Routledge.
Pflieger, G., & Matthieussent, S., (2008). Water and power in Santiago de Chile: Socio-spatial segregation through network integration. Geoforum, 39, 1907–1921.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J., (Eds.). (2003). Qualitative research practice. A guide for social science students and researchers. London: SAGE Publications.
Robertson, M., (Ed.). (2012). Sustainable cities. Ottawa: Practical Action Publishing.
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.
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.
Tomlinson, R., (2015). Scalable community-led Slum upgrading: The Indian alliance and community toilet blocks in Pune and Mumbai. Habitat International, 50, 160–168.
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
United Nations. (2016b). Habitat III issue papers [pdf]. Retrieved from http://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/Habitat-III-Issue-Papers-report.pdf
United Nations Human Settlements Programme. (2016). Urbanization and development: emerging futures (World cities report 2016). Nairobi: UN-Habitat
United Nations World Water Assessment Programme. (2015). The United Nations world water development report 2015: Water for a sustainable world. Paris: UNESCO.
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.
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.
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.
van Vliet, B., Chappels, H., & Shove, E., (2005). Infrastructure of consumption: Environmental innovations in the utility of industries. London: Earthscan.
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.
Walker, R., (2001). The geography of production. In E., Sheppard & T., Barnes (Eds.), A companion to economic geography (pp. 113–132). Oxford: Blackwell.
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.
WHO/UNICEF. (2015). WHO/UNICEF joint monitoring programme for water supply, sanitation and hygiene [Dataset]. Retrieved from https://washdata.org/data
Wilderer, P. A., & Schreff, D., (2000). Decentralized and centralized wastewater management: A challenge for technology developers. Water Science and Technology, 41(1), 1–8.
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.
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.
Yu, C., Brown, R., & Morison, P., (2012). Co-governing decentralised water systems: An analytical framework. Water Science and Technology, 66(12), 2731–2736.
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.
Zérah, M.-H., (2008). Splintering urbanism in Mumbai: Contrasting trends in a multilayered society. Geoforum, 39, 1922–1932.