Content uploaded by Dahae Lee
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dahae Lee on Dec 18, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Defining Co-Production: A Review
of the Planning Literature
Dahae Lee
,1
, Patricia Feiertag
1
, and Lena Unger
1
Abstract
Co-production is a concept that is becoming increasingly popular across various fields including planning. This article reviews
planning literature on co-production and reveals that the term has not been well defined. The existing definitions are inconsistent
and ambiguous, requiring more conceptual clarity to avoid contention. Based on the systematic literature review, and aided by
bibliometric analysis, the article identifies seven dimensions within the current definitions of co-production: (1) actor, (2) reason,
(3) input, (4) output, (5) phase, (6) means, and (7) context. This article concludes by proposing a conceptual and analytical frame-
work for defining co-production in planning theory and practice.
Keywords
co-production, planning literature, bibliometric analysis, co-citation analysis, content analysis
Introduction
Coined by Elinor Ostrom and her colleagues in 1970s, the term
‘co-production’was used to explain and give a theoretical foun-
dation to practices that involved citizens in the production of
public services (Ostrom 1972, 1996). Although initially it
received little attention, the concept has gained in popularity
since the 2000s in the context of austerity and new governance
(Bingham, Nabatchi and O’Leary 2005). As evidenced by the
increasing number of publications, programmes and activities
related to co-production, the concept is of great interest to
scholars and practitioners for several reasons (Nabatchi,
Sancino and Sicilia 2017) including the reduction of service
delivery costs, increased efficiency and creating new types of
relationships among the involved parties (Galuszka 2019).
However, the rapid growth of the concept has resulted in ambi-
guity about its meaning. In fact, there are various definitions
across diverse disciplines and co-production is often used as a
buzzword without a clear definition. As will be illustrated
later, there are publications that use the term in the title,
keyword or abstract without defining it at all.
The concept has gained in popularity within planning theory
and practice as well. It has been introduced to address multi-
actor involvement different from established forms of collabora-
tive planning (Watson 2014). As will be demonstrated later,
there has been a rapid growth in planning literature on
co-production. Although the concept in relation to planning
has its origin in the Western world, it has spread to other parts
of the world in different ways (Albrechts, Barbanente and
Monno 2019) resulting in further ambiguity. Notwithstanding,
there is no systematic literature review on co-production in
this field so far. Indeed, the result of a Web of Science (herein-
after WoS) search suggests that the majority of review papers on
co-production are from environment-related sciences, medicine/
healthcare, business and public administration/management.
There are five review papers identified from the planning field
(Falco und Kleinhans 2018; Raymond, Giusti and Barthel
2018; Rizzo, Habibipour and Stahlbrost 2021; Haraguchi et al.
2022; Bayuo, Chaminade and Goransson 2020), yet they are
written in relation to mobility, digital participation, cultural eco-
system services, urban living labs and the role of universities,
rather than defining the concept in the planning field.
A permanent conceptual contention due to various under-
standings can result in the collapse of a concept (Kirchherr,
Reike and Hekkert 2017). To avoid this, it is important to estab-
lish transparency regarding current understandings of the
concept. Hence, the main research question in this article is:
What is the current understanding of the concept of
co-production in planning literature? To this end, this article
aims to: (1) identify the most influential publications/authors
cited in the planning field; (2) trace the theoretical origins of
the field; (3) identify how the concept is defined in the field;
and (4) illustrate the development of the concept in the field.
The remainder of the article is structured as follows. The next
part describes the methodology used to conduct the bibliometric
analysis and systematic literature review. The third and fourth
sections present the findings of the analysis. The last section
summarises the results.
1
Faculty of Spatial Planning, Technical University of Dortmund, Dortmund,
Germany
Corresponding Author:
Dahae Lee, Faculty of Spatial Planning, Technical University of Dortmund,
Dortmund 44227, Germany.
Email: dahae.lee@tu-dortmund.de
Original Article (literature review or lit review with annotated bibliography)
Journal of Planning Literature
1-14
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/08854122231219919
journals.sagepub.com/home/jpl
Research Methods and Materials
The process of sample selection for this study involved six steps
(see Figure 1). First, the datasets for this study were retrieved
from the WoS citation database (the last search was on
August 16, 2022). The search term “co-production”OR “copro-
duction”yielded 13,113 results. In the second stage, the scope
of investigation was delimited by selecting English-language
publications only. In order to search for planning-related publi-
cations, the result was further filtered through a WoS category
‘regional (and) urban planning’. Lastly, a number of document
types were selected, that is, article, review article, book chapter,
early access, proceeding paper and editorial material. We did
not filter the results based on publication year, as the first pub-
lication defined in this search was relatively recent (i.e., 1981).
As a result, we found 302 publications, which we used for the
bibliometric analysis.
1
For the systematic literature review, 302
publications were manually screened to identify whether they
actually defined co-production. They were excluded if they did
not define the term (n =157) or were not accessible (n =3).
This resulted in 142 publications.
2
In order to meet the four research aims mentioned in the
introduction, both a bibliometric analysis and a systematic liter-
ature review were conducted (see Figure 1). Bibliometric anal-
ysis is a method that involves the use of quantitative techniques
on bibliometric data. We used it for performance analysis,
co-citation analysis and citation analysis (Donthu et al. 2021).
Regarding the performance analysis, publication-related metrics
(e.g., total publications), citation-related metrics (e.g., total cita-
tions) as well as citation-and-publication-related metrics (e.g.,
citation per cited publication) were used based on the citation
report by WoS. This allowed us to identify times cited and pub-
lications over time as well as the most cited publications/authors
from the planning field. Moreover, co-citation analysis helped us
identify the most influential publications/authors in the
co-production literature and trace the theoretical origins of
co-production literature in the planning field (Newell and
Cousins 2015; Noyons 2001). VOSviewer was used to visualise
and analyse the co-citation network. While the performance anal-
ysis and co-citation analysis involved the analysis of 302 publi-
cations and their references, citation analysis was used to analyse
the cited publications of 142 definitions. The result of the citation
analysis was then visualised through Gephi.
In addition to the bibliometric analysis, a systematic literature
review was conducted to study how the term ‘co-production’has
been defined in the planning field. A systematic literature review
is used for different purposes (Xiao and Watson 2019); in our
case, the aim was to describe the state of the literature (i.e.,
definition of co-production) at the time of the review. Hence,
we conducted a content analysis of definitions found in the plan-
ning literature by using systematic procedures. The first step
involved identifying definitions for the analysis. We acknowledge
that definitions written in publications can be rather narrow
Figure 1. Flow chart of literature search and analysis process (source: own diagram). Note: Last search was on August 16, 2022.
2Journal of Planning Literature
operationalisations of the understanding of a concept and may not
capture the full complexity elaborated in the original text
(Kirchherr, Reike and Hekkert 2017). However, we argue that
definitions still represent authors’understanding of the concept.
In order to address the issue, we considered not only the most rel-
evant sentence but also the neighbouring text. Among the publi-
cations, 142 publications actually defined the term. From each
publication, one definition was taken, mainly from the introduc-
tion and literature review. Where possible, the author’sowndef-
inition was taken.
The 142 definitions were analysed manually based on the
coding framework we developed in an iterative process. Based
on the initial knowledge of the concept as well as a preliminary
literature review, dimensions (hereinafter codes) and subdimen-
sions (hereinafter subcodes) were developed deductively.
These were then added and adapted inductively throughout the
coding process. A new subcode was created if there were at
least three matching codings. Seven codes were developed even-
tually (actor/reason/input/output/phase/means/context) with 51
subcodes. Each code with its subcodes is defined in the findings
section. In order to address the problem of manual coding (i.e.,
low reliability), every definition was coded by two coders
based on an initial set of coding rules. In the case of diverging
coding results, the definition was reviewed by a third coder
and discussed by all. Lastly, we calculated the word frequency
for each code and compared the result with the result of the
content analysis to confirm the findings. Thereby, words with
the same stems (e.g., involve, involvement and involving) were
considered as one. The result of the word frequency check and
the explanation of how it supports the results of the content anal-
ysis are presented in the findings section.
Findings of the Bibliometric Analysis
This section presents the result of the performance analysis,
co-citation analysis and citation analysis, all of which are part
of the bibliometric analysis. First, citations were analysed
through performance analysis to identify times cited and publi-
cations over time as well as the most cited publications/authors
from the planning field. As shown in Figure 2, the very first
publication defined in the search was published in 1981;
however, it took 30 years before the annual productivity
would flourish at an exponential rate. The development stag-
nated until 2004 when it started to rise steadily and then from
2012, there has been a large quantity of planning literature on
co-production. This trend is also observed with regard to the
number of citations as there is an exponential growth starting
from 2004. Out of 302 publications, 239 have received more
than one citation. The sum of the times cited until August
2022 is 4,365. The five most influential publications/authors
based on the total number of citations are listed in Table 1.
They all have more than 100 total citations.
Co-citation analysis was also conducted to trace the theoret-
ical origins of co-production literature in the planning field (see
Figure 3). Altogether, 13,845 references from 302 publications
were analysed. The threshold was set at nine, leading to 30 ref-
erences. Altogether, three clusters were identified. A cluster is a
set of closely related references (Van Eck and Waltman 2014).
For instance, the publications by Albrechts (2013) and Watson
(2014) were found in the same cluster, suggesting that they are
closely related. This may be because both are from the field of
regional and urban planning. Interestingly, the publication by
Mitlin (2008) was found in this cluster as well and in close con-
nection with Albrechts (2013) and Watson (2014) although it
does not belong to the planning field according to the WoS cat-
egory. This may be because it belongs to the category ‘urban
studies’which is close to the planning field. Broadly speaking,
three fields can be identified from the five most influential pub-
lications/authors (see Table 1), that is, public administration,
environmental studies and regional and urban planning. As
shown in Figure 3, the publications are closely connected
with 261 links.
Lastly, cited publications/authors of definitions were ana-
lysed. Out of 142 definitions, 105 directly or indirectly referred
Figure 2. Times cited and publications over time in the planning field (source: own diagram).
Lee et al. 3
to other publications/authors. Hence, they were subject to the
analysis. Fifty-eight definitions use at least one citation; 47
have more than two citations. Altogether, 105 definitions
cited 118 publications; 28 out of 118 publications were cited
more than twice. According to the WoS category, most of the
28 publications come from the field of public administration
and environmental studies. We found two publications from
the regional and urban planning field as well (i.e., Albrechts
2013; Watson 2014). The fact that the publications from the
field of public administration and environmental studies influ-
enced the co-production literature in the planning field is in
line with the result of the co-citation analysis. The five most
cited publications/authors of analysed definitions are listed in
Table 1. What is remarkable is that three of them were also
identified in the co-citation network, that is, Ostrom (1996),
Bovaird (2007) and Mitlin (2008). As shown in Figure 4, the
top five publications are connected in the large network.
To sum up, bibliometric analysis was conducted to identify
the most influential publications/authors and to trace the theo-
retical origins of co-production literature in the planning field.
The results of the performance analysis, co-citation analysis
and citation analysis show a similarity to some degree. For
instance, among the literature in the planning field, the publica-
tions by Albrechts (2013) and Watson (2014) are regarded as
the two most influential works. Interestingly, the three most
cited publications/authors from the planning field other than
Albrechts and Watson (i.e., Polk 2015; Chilvers and
Longhurst 2016; Goldstein and Renault 2004) are not remark-
able in the results of the co-citation and citation analysis. The
co-citation analysis and citation analysis show a similar result
as well. The result of the citation analysis reveals that many def-
initions of co-production in planning literature cited publica-
tions in other fields —mostly public administration and
environmental studies. This is also proved by the results of
Table 1. Most Influential Publications/Authors According to the Bibliometric Analysis (Source: Own Diagram).
Title Author
Publication
year Citation WoS category
Performance analysis: Most cited publications/authors from the planning field
Transdisciplinary co-production: Designing and testing a
transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem
solving
Polk, Merritt 2015 193 Regional and Urban
Planning
Reframing strategic spatial planning by using a coproduction
perspective
Albrechts, Louis 2013 159 Regional and Urban
Planning
Participation in transition(s): Reconceiving public engagements
in energy transitions as co-produced, emergent and diverse
Chilvers, Jason and
Longhurst, Noel
2016 151 Regional and Urban
Planning
Co-production and collaboration in planning —The difference Watson, Vanessa 2014 150 Regional and Urban
Planning
Contributions of universities to regional economic
development: A quasi-experimental approach
Goldstein, Harvey and
Renault, Catherine
2004 127 Regional and Urban
Planning
Co-citation analysis: Most influential publications/authors in the co-production literature
Crossing the great divide: Co-production, synergy and
development
Ostrom, Elinor 1996 44 Development Studies;
Economics
With and beyond the state: Co-production as a route to
political influence, power and transformation for grassroots
organisations
Mitlin, Diana 2008 40 Environmental Studies;
Urban Studies
Co-production and collaboration in planning: The difference Watson, Vanessa 2014 38 Urban Studies; Regional
and Urban Planning
Beyond engagement and participation: User and community
coproduction of public services
Bovaird, Tony 2007 35 Public Administration
Reframing strategic spatial planning by using a coproduction
perspective
Albrechts, Louis 2013 27 Regional and Urban
Planning
Citation analysis: Most cited publications/authors of analysed definitions
Crossing the great divide: Co-production, synergy and
development
Ostrom Elinor 1996 16 Development Studies;
Economics
Beyond engagement and participation: User and community
coproduction of public services
Bovaird, Tony 2007 10 Public Administration
With and beyond the state: Co-production as a route to
political influence, power and transformation for grassroots
organisations
Mitlin, Diana 2008 9 Environmental Studies;
Urban Studies
Co-production and collaboration in planning: The difference Watson, Vanessa 2014 9 Urban Studies; Regional
and Urban Planning
The challenge of co-production: How equal partnerships
between professionals and the public are crucial to improving
public services
Boyle, David and
Harris, Michael
2009 6 NA
4Journal of Planning Literature
Figure 3. Result of co-citation analysis (source: own diagram; visualisation: VOSviewer). Note: The node represents specific references cited;
the edges signify that two references are cited together; nodal size reflects the number of connections a reference has in the network (degree
centrality); and colour of nodes represents clusters.
Figure 4. Result of citation analysis (source: own diagram; visualisation: Gephi). Note: The node represents both citing and cited publications;
the edges signify that a publication (outward) cites another (inward); nodal size reflects the number of connections a publication has in the
network (in-degree centrality). This figure shows the largest network only. Other networks that are small and not connected to this network
are not shown.
Lee et al. 5
the co-citation analysis as the publications from regional and
urban planning are closely linked with publications from
these two fields. Overall, publications by Ostrom (1996),
Bovaird (2007) and Mitlin (2008), Albrechts (2013) and
Watson (2014) serve as theoretical origins of co-production lit-
erature in the planning field.
Findings of the Systematic Literature Review
Interestingly, not all publications dealing with the concept of
co-production define co-production. Out of 299 publications,
157 do not define the term ‘co-production’at all, although 88
have the term in their title, keyword or abstract.
3
This section
presents the results of the systematic review of 142 definitions
based on seven codes and 51 subcodes. Several codes share two
subcodes, that is, unspecified and others.Unspecified is a
subcode for those that are not specific enough (e.g., in the
case of ‘actor’: different actors), whereas others is a subcode
that contains the remaining codings which do not belong to
any other subcodes and are not frequent enough to form a
new subcode. This section includes the definition of each
code and its subcodes and an explanation of how frequently
the subcodes appear in definitions in general and over time.
In order to study the development of definition over time, we
applied three time intervals: before 2015, 2015–2018 and
2019–2022. While the number of publications started to
increase from 2012, it was only after 2015 that stability was
achieved. Accordingly, three time intervals were differentiated
to better explore the trend.
Actor
This code describes the actors involved in co-production.
According to the result of the analysis, ‘actor’is the code with
the highest number of codings, which shows its central impor-
tance when it comes to the definition of co-production. Various
actors are involved in co-production; hence, we categorised
them into nine types (see Table 2). Individuals from the public
sector, the private sector, service providers and civil society
act as representatives of an organisation or group, whereas indi-
vidual citizens,professionals and service users/consumers/clients
act on their own behalf. Service providers can be public, semi-
public or private institutions. The subcode civil society includes
both organised citizen groups and NGOs. Professionals range
from scientists, practitioners, planners, policymakers to profes-
sionals in general without specification in the text. It is important
to mention that a person can have several attributions, but the
coding was done based on the role highlighted in the definitions.
As an example, service users are also citizens, but the definitions
that use terms such as service users, consumers or clients empha-
sise their role in the use of (public) services.
Out of 142 definitions, 128 include actor-elements (90%);
within those definitions, there are 244 codings. The most men-
tioned subcode is individual citizens, present in 45% of all def-
initions with the code ‘actor’, followed by unspecified (31%)
and the public sector (30%), civil society (24%) and different
types of professionals (21%). Private sector is mentioned as
well, but far less often (12%). What is interesting is that
about a third of definitions do not indicate specifically who
the co-producers are, but mention the actors rather vaguely
like ‘different actors’(thus unspecified). As co-production
involves different types of actors, 60% of definitions contain
more than one subcode. Indeed, 29 definitions mention more
than two types of actors, the maximum being six different subc-
odes. The combinations of involved actors vary considerably.
The most common combination is individual citizens and the
public sector (21 times; six out of 21 with other subcodes
meaning other types of actors). Other frequent combinations
with citizens are professionals (nine times, always combined
with other subcodes), users (nine times; eight out of nine
with other subcodes) and service providers (nine times; six
out of nine with other subcodes). On the other hand, definitions
that only address actors in the public sector and private sector
without mentioning any other actors are rare. A more frequent
combination without citizens is the public sector with profes-
sionals (10 times; four out of 10 with other subcodes).
Looking at the development of actor-elements over time,
there are a number of interesting trends (see Figure 5). For
Table 2. Coding Result on ‘Actor’.
Subcode Example N%
Individual citizens “citizens”(e.g., Albrechts 2013); “residents”(e.g., Cheng et al. 2022) 57 45
Public sector “government”(e.g., Bragaglia 2021); “state”(e.g., Refstie and Millstein 2019) 39 30
Civil society “communities”(e.g., Refstie and Millstein 2019); “a group of people”(Czischke 2018) 31 24
Professionals “practitioners and researchers”(Polk 2015) 27 21
Users/consumers/
clients
“service users”(e.g., Kelly and Lloyd-Williams 2013); “consumers”(e.g., Potluka and Medeiros 2021) 18 14
Service providers “producers”(Kelly and Lloyd-Williams 2013); “established providers”(Czischke 2018) 16 13
Private sector “developers with sufficient financial resources”(Bwalya and Seethal 2013); “market”(e.g., Refstie and
Millstein 2019)
15 12
Unspecified “different actors”(Parker, Lynn and Wargent 2017); “two or more stakeholders”(Blackman, Nakanishi and
Benson 2017)
40 31
Others “nature”(Mellegard and Boonstra 2020) 1 1
Note: Full sample =244 codings in 128 definitions; % =in relation to the number of definitions with code ‘actor’.
6Journal of Planning Literature
instance, the distinction between different types of actors is less
remarkable in the definitions before 2015 than in the other two
phases. Indeed, individual citizens,thepublic sector,andprofes-
sionals shared the same frequency (32%) followed by users/con-
sumers/clients (27%), service providers (23%), the private sector
(23%) and civil society (18%). While the frequency for the public
sector is relatively stable throughout all phases (between 22%
and 32%), other types of actors show a fluctuation —either
upwards or downwards. Apart from individual citizens and
civil society, other types of actors have seen a decrease.
Interestingly, the subcode with the greatest fluctuation (or
increase in this case) is unspecified (from 14% to 34%). This sug-
gests, on the one hand, more emphasis is put on the role of citi-
zens. On the other hand, other types of actors are increasingly
grouped together under ‘different actors’without distinction.
Reason
This code refers to the justifications, aims or reasons for
co-production. Twelve different reasons were identified, sug-
gesting that there are various reasons why co-production
takes place. These range from rather general reasons, that is,
to address needs,to solve problems, and to create better out-
comes, to more specific reasons, such as to react to austerity,
to improve efficiency and to improve quantity/quality mostly
in relation to services and goods. There are also normative
reasons with underlying criticism, such as to distribute power
between the state and citizen, to create social benefits,to
promote engagement and to gain democratic legitimacy.
Linked to these reasons is to improve knowledge production
in reference to, for instance, diversification of the inclusion of
knowledge types and their trajectory into policymaking.
Out of 142 definitions, 55 have reason-elements (39%);
within those definitions, there are 82 codings. While the most
common subcode is to address needs (20%), the difference
among the top five reasons is small (between 16% and 20%).
The remaining reasons are rather minor, ranging from 5% to
9% (see Table 3). The analysis reveals that there is not a single
dominant reason for co-production; about a third of definitions
mention from one to three reasons. What is also interesting is
the fact that the most popular reasons for co-production change
constantly over time (see Figure 5). Before 2015, the top two
reasons were to distribute power (18%) and to address needs
(14%), while in the second period the top reasons were others
(10%) and to create better outcome (8%). For the 2019 until
2022, the top reasons shifted again —to improve efficiency
(10%), to distribute power (7%) and to address needs (7%).
The constant change may be due to societal changes but this
needs further research.
Input
This code describes the inputs different actors contribute
throughout the process of co-production. The inputs mentioned
are mostly immaterial, such as knowledge/expertise,experience
from different practices and perspective. These three subcodes
are fairly close to each other; the first is about different kinds of
knowledge, the second about practical experience, and the third
includes interpretations and opinions.
Out of 142 definitions, 48 include input-elements (34%);
within those definitions, there are 56 codings. According to
the result of the analysis (see Table 4), knowledge/expertise
is by far the most common subcode, present in 50% of all def-
initions with the code ‘input’. Indeed, this code is most
Figure 5. Development of subcodes over time (source: own diagram). Note: The figure shows the percentage of subcodes in relation to the
number of definitions in each period, that is, before 2015 (n =22); 2015–2018 (n =59); 2019–2022 (n =61).
Lee et al. 7
important in definitions regarding knowledge co-production,
highlighting the input of various forms of knowledge, includ-
ing nonacademic types such as local knowledge. What is
noticeable is the high percentage of unspecified input
ranking second (29%). Interestingly, this type of inputs is
fleshed out by mentioning actors, mainly citizens,service pro-
viders and users: for instance, ‘citizens provide inputs to ser-
vices that are traditionally produced exclusively by public
agencies’(Nance and Ortolano 2016: 2). Thus, the more rele-
vant question may be who provides an input rather than what
kind of input is provided. Among 48 definitions, eight have
two subcodes. The most frequent combination is between
the subcodes knowledge/expertise and experience from differ-
ent practices (five times).
Although knowledge/expertise is revealed to be the prevail-
ing input, the development of input-elements shows a some-
what different picture (see Figure 5). Even though knowledge/
expertise ranks first, its share has decreased from 20% to 16%
with time. A similar observation is made about the subcode
experience from different practices. This type of input has
seen the highest fluctuation from 0% (before 2015) to 14%
(2015–2018) to 2% (2019–2022). Indeed, it dropped from
number two (2015–2018) to number five (2019–2022). In con-
trast, the subcode unspecified has shown a steady increase and
Table 3. Coding Result on ‘Reason’.
Subcode Example N%
To address needs “(…) address the local needs more precisely”(Potluka and Medeiros 2021) 11 20
To improve efficiency “cost reduction”(Farmer and Bradley 2012); “improved efficiency”(e.g., Kleinhans, Falco and
Babelon 2022)
10 18
To distribute power “(…) to shift the poser relations between communities, state, and market”(Refstie and Millstein
2019)
916
To improve quality/quantity “(…) directly control the quantity and quality (Potluka and Medeiros 2021) 9 16
To create better outcome “(…) to achieve better outcomes”(Falco and Kleinhans 2018) 9 16
To improve knowledge
production
“(…) to disclose and create new knowledge”(Reed and Abernethy 2018) 5 9
To promote engagement “(…) to reinvigorate voluntary participation”(Falco and Kleinhans 2018) 4 7
To create social benefits “(…) social cohesion in an increasingly fragmented and individualized society”(Falco and Kleinhans
2018)
47
To solve problem “(…) real life problem solving (Polk 2015) 4 7
To gain democratic legitimacy “(…) supports democratic governance and public accountability”(Cheng et al. 2022) 3 5
To react to austerity “(…)fiscal pressures and austerity regimes”(Kleinhans, Falco and Babelon 2022) 3 5
Others “(…) for social and political change”(Durose and Richardson 2016) 11 20
Note: Full sample =82 codings in 55 definitions; % =in relation to the number of definitions with code ‘reason’.
Table 4. Coding Result on ‘Input’and ‘Output’.
Subcode Example N%
Input
Knowledge/expertise “knowledge”(e.g., Krueger 2015); “different forms of expertise”(Durose and Richardson 2016) 24 50
Experience from different
practices
“experience from real world practice”(Polk 2015) 9 19
Perspective “other types of relevant perspectives”(Polk 2015) 3 6
Unspecified “resources”(Blume 2016); “assets”(Lindsay et al. 2021) 14 29
Others “needs”(Reimann et al. 2021); “natural, human, financial and manufactured capital”(Raymond, Giusti
and Barthel 2018)
613
Output
Public service “public services”(e.g., Kelly and Lloyd-Williams 2013); “urban services”(Bwalya and Seethal 2013) 48 52
Knowledge “knowledge”(e.g., Polk 2015); “new knowledge”(Korhonen-Kurki et al. 2022) 27 29
Public good “public goods”(e.g., Cheng et al. 2022); “more than one commodity”(Lakshmanan and Okumara 1995);
“improvement in urban environments”(Canelas and Baptista 2021)
14 15
Social order “social order”(e.g., Krueger 2015) 6 6
Policy “new joint policies”(Heeres, Tillema and Arts 2016) 5 5
Value “value”(Blackman, Nakanishi and Benson 2017) 4 4
Unspecified “outcomes”(Blume 2016); “a mutually desired output”(Parker, Lynn and Wargent 2017) 7 8
Others “health interventions”(Wardani et al. 2022) 7 8
Note: For ‘input’full sample =56 codings in 48 definitions; % =in relation to the number of definitions with code ‘input’; for ‘output’full sample =118 codings in 93
definitions; % =in relation to the number of definitions with code ‘output’.
8Journal of Planning Literature
ranks second in the latest phase. This suggests that authors tend
not to distinguish between different types of input.
Output
This code describes what is co-produced and includes public
service, knowledge,public good,social order, policy, and
value as the output of co-production. As shown by the examples
(see Table 4), the coded elements for each subcode are quite
similar. Public good is an exception in this regard, as it includes
specific public goods such as the urban environment.
Out of 142 definitions, 93 include output-elements (65%);
within those definitions, there are 118 codings. According to
the result of the analysis, the most frequent subcode is public
service, present in 52% of all definitions with the code
‘output’, followed by knowledge (29%) and public good
(15%). Overall, 27% of the definitions contain more than one
subcode of what output, none of them containing more than
two. Among others, public service and public good are coded
together in 10 documents, highlighting the close connection
between these subcodes. Another frequent combination of
subcodes is knowledge and social order; all of these definitions
refer to Sheila Jasanoff (see e.g., Jasanoff 2004). What is also
interesting is the relation between input and output of
co-production. For instance, knowledge is often mentioned
not only as an input but also as an output: indeed, out of 27 def-
initions that have knowledge as an output, 16 include knowl-
edge as an input as well. In contrast, other outputs such as
public services and public goods are mentioned in combination
with unspecified inputs, if any.
The development of ‘output’over time (see Figure 5) generally
corresponds to the result presented in Table 4. So for instance,
public service remains outstanding although it has seen a drop.
In fact, the output of co-production goes beyond public services
and includes other types. So for instance, public good is increas-
ingly seen as an output. Although it was less notable until 2018
(sixth place among eight subcodes), it has moved up to second
place in the ranking in the latest phase. Knowledge is another
type of output though it saw a drop from 2015–2018 to 2019–
2022. Other types of output remain less mentioned.
Phase
This code refers to the phase through which co-production takes
place. According to the result of the analysis, co-production takes
place from planning to delivery and management (see Table 5).
The first phase, planning, is where related issues are discussed
and decisions made to prepare the actual implementation of a
plan, that is, delivery. After a plan is realised, it requires manage-
ment practices, including evaluation and control.
Out of 142 definitions, 67 have phase-elements (47%); within
those definitions, there are 93 codings. Among the three different
phases, delivery is the most common subcode, present in 84% of
all definitions with the code ‘phase’,followedbyplanning (39%)
and management (9%). A few definitions mention ‘all phases’
(see Table 5). Out of 67 definitions, 22 (33%) mention more
than one subcode. The most frequent combination is planning
and delivery (15 times). Delivery and management are found in
two definitions. Interestingly, four definitions cover the whole
spectrum by mentioning all three subcodes —planning,delivery
and management. Looking at the development of phase-elements
over time (see Figure 5), definitions before 2015 saw planning
and delivery as phases of co-production only. Although the man-
agement phase has appeared since 2015, it is far less mentioned
compared to planning and delivery.
Means
This code refers to the means through which co-production takes
place. According to the result of the analysis, co-production takes
Table 5. Coding Result on ‘Phase’.
Subcode Example N %
Planning “decision-making”(e.g., Amanatidou, Gritzas
and Kavoulakos 2015); “design”(e.g., Kelly
and Lloyd-Williams 2013)
26 39
Delivery “production”(Lakshmanan and Okumara
1995); “provision”(e.g., Bwalya and Seethal
2013)
56 84
Management “review”(Blume 2016); “control”(Potluka
and Medeiros 2021)
69
Unspecified “entire process”(Reimann et al. 2021) 5 7
Note: Full sample =93 codings in 67 definitions; % =in relation to the number of
definitions with code ‘phase’.
Table 6. Coding Result on ‘Means’.
Subcode Example N %
Participation “(…) to involve multiple participants”
(Korhonen-Kurki et al. 2022)
61 47
Collaboration “(…) joint action of fragmented actors
that goes further than ‘the mere piecing
together of’sectoral perspectives”
(Heeres, Tillema and Arts 2016)
39 30
Combination “(…) through the combination of
scientific perspectives with other types
of relevant perspectives and experience
from real world practice”(Polk 2015)
23 18
Interaction “(…)byflows and exchanges of
knowledge”(Lakshmanan and Okumara
1995)
17 13
Equal
relationship
“(…) empowered to contribute their
assets to, and act as equal partners”
(Lindsay et al. 2021)
17 13
Change in role “(…) citizens are not passive recipients of
public services but active participants”
(Zhang and Hartley 2022)
16 12
Innovative
practice
“(…) through new forms of governance
and management”(Pill and Bailey 2012)
65
Others “(…) deciding”(Blume 2016) 10 8
Note: Full sample =189 codings in 129 definitions; % =in relation to the number
of definitions with code ‘means’.
Lee et al. 9
place in different ways (see Table 6). For instance, co-production
may emerge through various forms of action, such as participa-
tion (i.e., taking part), collaboration (i.e., working with
someone), combination (i.e., merging) and interaction (i.e., com-
municating). Moreover, the co-production literature suggests that
the change in role and equal relationship between different actors
allow co-production to happen. Finally, yet importantly, innova-
tive practice is also mentioned as an impetus for co-production.
Out of 142 definitions, 129 have means-elements (91%);
within those definitions, there are 189 codings. The most
common subcode is participation, present in 47% of all defini-
tions with the code ‘means’, followed by collaboration (30%)
and combination (18%). Interaction,change in role and equal
relationship are in fourth and fifth places with a similar fre-
quency (12–13%). A few definitions mention innovative prac-
tice (5%) as a way in which co-production takes place. The
development of the means-elements over time (see Figure 5)
generally corresponds to the results presented in Table 6. Yet
there are a few exceptions. For instance, equal relationship
was much emphasised before 2015; it was in fact the third
most common subcode after participation and collaboration.
However, since 2015 this subcode has been much less men-
tioned. What is also interesting is that no definition mentioned
combination before 2015. It became popular from 2015 though
and since then has taken third place. Lastly, innovative practice
is generally not popular; it did not appear at all between 2019
and 2022.
Context
This code refers to the characteristics of the location that might
influence the emergence of co-production. The subcode Global
South highlights specific conditions in southern cities such as
limited resources as well as the role of self-organisation and
informality. The definitions specifically mentioning Global
South contexts suggest that co-production is a pragmatic way
to ensure access to basic services that communities ‘would prob-
ably not receive otherwise’(Calzada, Iranzo and Sanz 2017,
404). Indeed, much of the cited literature, such as Ostrom 1996
or Mitlin 2008, is based on cases from the Global South. In con-
trast to that, the Global North is not mentioned in any definitions.
The subcode place with the lack of capacity and resources points
in a similar direction, emphasising that co-production can be an
answer to the lack of state capacity. The subcode local more gen-
erally highlights the importance of local contexts for
co-production and the spatial scale in which it takes place. The
subcode globally on the other hand points out that the concept
has become popular all over the world.
With 11 out of 142 definitions, ‘context’is the least common
code, reflecting that most definitions do not distinguish between
Figure 6. Development of codes over time (source: own diagram). Note: The figure shows the percentage of codes in relation to the number
of definitions in each period.
Table 7. Coding Result on ‘Context’.
Subcode Example N %
Global South “in certain Global South contexts”
(Watson 2014)
436
Place with the lack of
capacity and
resource
“countries suffering from severe
austerity measures”(Amanatidou,
Gritzas and Kavoulakos 2015)
218
Local “at the local level”(Bragaglia 2021) 2 18
Global “globally”(Wardani et al. 2022);
“around the world”(Kleinhans,
Falco and Babelon 2022)
218
Others “rural areas”(Farmer and Bradley
2012)
19
Note: Full sample =11 codings in 11 definitions; % =in relation to the number of
definitions with code ‘context’.
10 Journal of Planning Literature
different spatial and societal contexts. This suggests that
co-production can take different forms depending on the
context, but is not limited to specific locations. None of the def-
initions encompasses more than one subcode. Among the four
subcodes (see Table 7), Global South is the most frequent,
present in 36% of all definitions with the code ‘context’. The
rest are equally represented with only two codings (18%).
What is interesting regarding the development of
context-elements (see Figure 5) is that place with the lack of
capacity and resource was much emphasised between 2015
and 2018 only, while both local and global contexts gained
attention from 2019 onwards. Global South is the only
context that has received constant attention in co-production lit-
erature although there has been a decrease.
To sum up, we performed a content analysis of 142 defini-
tions of co-production in planning literature to find out how
the concept has been defined in this field. The result suggests
that there is no single definition; rather, various definitions
exist covering seven different codes, that is, actor, reason,
input, output, phase, means, and context. Among the codes,
‘actor’and ‘means’are most commonly used to define the
concept as they appear in approximately 90% of definitions ana-
lysed (see Figure 6). In contrast, ‘context’is the least common
code appearing in less than 10% of definitions. What is also
interesting is the difference between ‘input’and ‘output’; the
latter is twice as frequently mentioned. Each code has subcodes
and there is generally a substantial difference between them as
certain subcodes are more prominent than others. Word fre-
quency was calculated to crosscheck this and the result con-
firmed the dominance of certain subcodes, that is, service
(108 times) and knowledge (63 times) as an input and/or
output of co-production as well as citizen (66 times) and the
public (83 times) sector as co-producers. Note that the word
‘public’is often part of a word combination.
Conclusion
Processes of urban planning and development typically involve
multiple stakeholders. While there are various terms that refer to
the multi-actor involvement, co-production as a concept gained
popularity from 2012 onwards. This suggests that scholars in
the planning field see an advantage in using the term. Indeed,
as our findings (especially for ‘reason’) suggest, co-production
is considered to play an important role in dealing with various
challenges and complex problems. As the concept of
co-production has become increasingly popular across disci-
plines, the ambiguity of the concept has increased as well.
The result of the bibliometric analysis partly explains this phe-
nomenon as definitions mentioned in planning literature often
come from various fields in addition to planning. The findings
of the systematic literature review confirm the ambiguity as
co-production is defined in various ways, or in some cases,
not defined at all. In fact, 88 publications did not provide any
definition, even though co-production is used in the title,
abstract or keywords. We see the risk that the concept is used
as a buzzword. Hence, based on the result of the systematic lit-
erature review, this study provides clarity to the concept by
fleshing out what the core dimensions of co-production are.
We propose the seven dimensions discussed in the findings
section and related questions as a conceptual and analytical
framework (named Co-7D-framework) for defining
co-production in planning theory and practice (see Table 8).
The intention is not to insist that the definition has to cover
all dimensions. Rather, we argue that when using the term,
researchers and practitioners need to reflect these dimensions
and ask themselves whom to engage with, why they should
engage, when to engage, how to engage, in which context to
engage, what input is needed and what output is expected.
This will help the involved stakeholders not only build consen-
sus on what they understand by ‘co-production’, but also to
achieve a desired outcome. In addition, the framework can be
useful to compare co-production to other related concepts
such as co-creation, co-design, participation and collaboration
by identifying which dimensions overlap and which differ.
How these concepts differ from co-production in planning liter-
ature is beyond the scope of this article, but certainly represents
an important avenue for future research.
During the analysis, a few things caught our attention. First,
there was an overlap between codes. For instance, austerity (or
more generally lack of capacity and resources) was mentioned
both as a reason and as a context where co-production occurs.
This suggests that there is no clear-cut distinction among the
codes. Second, we found that some combinations of subcodes
were more common than others. Even though this study
touches on these patterns, analysing them deserves further
research. Also, whether certain codes are especially popular
for a certain type of planning (e.g., strategic or collaborative
planning) or in a certain context can be researched. Lastly,
while the popularity of codes and subcodes constantly
changes over time, some of them appear more often in defini-
tions than others, regardless of time. ‘Actor’and ‘means’are
the two most frequently used codes to define co-production
throughout all three phases (see Figure 6). Why a certain
code or subcode is popular throughout all phases or in a
certain period only could be the subject of future research.
This study has limitations. First, we used WoS only and did
not involve other databases such as Scopus and Google Scholar.
We are aware that WoS has limitations in terms of geographical
and language coverage (i.e., priority for English). Yet we chose
publications in English only due to the manual coding for the
Table 8. Co-7D-Framework (Source: Own Diagram).
Dimension Question
Actor Who are the co-producers?
Reason Why does the co-production take place?
Input What kind of input does the co-production involve?
Output What kind of output does the co-production result in?
Phase When does the co-production take place?
Means How does the co-production take place?
Context Where does the co-production take place?
Lee et al. 11
systematic literature review. Although the majority of publica-
tions were in English (12,738 publications out of 13,111), so we
admit that Anglo-American bias may have occurred (Newell
and Cousins 2015). The reason Google Scholar was not
selected was the lack of bibliometric data as well as the
absence of quality control. Also, while Google Scholar is
more inclusive in terms of types of documents, the lack of a fil-
tering function makes it difficult to exclude documents such as
presentations and grey literature. Scopus does not allow for
sharp filtering either in terms of the subject area, and thus
was excluded. Although the subject area ‘social science’
includes a wide range of subareas including ‘urban studies’,
the filtering function does not allow narrowing down to
subareas.
Second, the WoS category ‘regional (and) urban planning’is
not clear enough. Indeed, during the manual screening, we real-
ised that some publications were less relevant to planning. This
is because the WoS category is journal-related rather than
publication-related.
4
Another possibility for categorical filtering
is called the WoS research area. Yet there is no category for
regional and urban planning. The most relevant research area
would be ‘urban studies’, but this is rather broad as well.
Furthermore, as content analysis involves a qualitative
approach, the analysis (both determining the coding framework
and manual coding of definitions) is subjective. Although the
bibliometric analysis itself is quantitative, the same goes for
the interpretation of its result. However, an attempt to overcome
this problem (at least partially) was made by involving three
coders and having them constantly exchange opinions.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Dahae Lee https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2897-5718
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Notes
1. This article provides Appendix A: List of publications as online
Supplemental Material.
2. This article provides Appendix B: List of definitions as online
Supplemental Material.
3. Note that 25 publications do not have an abstract and 40 publica-
tions do not have keywords at all.
4. There are currently 55 journals. The list can be found on the WoS
website.
References
Albrechts, L. 2013. “Reframing Strategic Spatial Planning by Using a
Coproduction Perspective.”Planning Theory 12 (1): 46–63. doi:10.
1177/1473095212452722.
Albrechts, L., A. Barbanente, and V. Monno. 2019. “From Stage-Managed
Planning towards a more Imaginative and Inclusive Strategic Spatial
Planning.”EPC: Politics and Space 37 (8): 1489–506. doi:10.1177/
2399654419825655.
Amanatidou, E., G. Gritzas, and K. I. Kavoulakos. 2015. “Time Banks,
Co-Production and Foresight: Intertwined towards an Alternative
Future.”Foresight (los Angeles, Calif ) 17 (4): 308–31. doi:10.
1108/FS-05-2014-0035.
Bayuo, B. B., C. Chaminade, and B. Goransson. 2020. “Unpacking the
Role of Universities in the Emergence, Development and Impact of
Social Innovations —A Systematic Review of the Literature.”
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 155: 120030.
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120030.
Bingham, L. B., T. Nabatchi, and R. O’Leary. 2005. “The new
Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen
Participation in the Work of Government.”Public Administration
Review 65 (5): 528–39. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00482.x.
Blackman, D., H. Nakanishi, and A. M. Benson. 2017. “Disaster
Resilience as a Compex Problem: Why Linearity is Not
Applicable for Long-Term Recovery.”Technological Forecasting
and Social Change 121: 89–98. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.09.018.
Blume, T. 2016. “Creative Disruption for Cultural Change.”In
Designing Public Policy for Co-Production: Theory, Practice
and Change, edited by C. Durose, and L. Richardson, 91–100.
Bristol: Bristol University Press, Policy Press.
Bovaird, T. 2007. “Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and
Community Coproduction of Public Services.”Public
Administration Review 67 (5): 846–60. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.
2007.00773.x.
Boyle, D., and M. Harris. 2009. “The Challenge of Co-Production: How
Equal Partnerships Between Professionals and the Public are Crucial
to Improving Public Services.”Accessed 15 February 2023. https://
neweconomics.org/uploads/files/312ac8ce93a00d5973_3im6i6t0e.pdf
Bragaglia, F. 2021. “Social Innovation as a ‘Magic Concept’for
Policy-Makers and Its Implications for Urban Governance.”
Planning Theory 20 (2): 102–20. doi:10.1177/1473095220934832.
Bwalya, J., and C. Seethal. 2013. “Dearth of Collective Efficacy:
Towards Explaining Truncated Municipal Water Service Delivery
in Kabwe, Central Zambia.”Habitat International 40: 142–7.
doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2013.03.005.
Calzada, J., S. Iranzo, and A. Sanz. 2017. “Community-Managed
Water Services: The Case of Peru.”Journal of Environmental &
Development 26 (4): 400–28. doi:10.1177/1070496517734020.
Canelas, P., and I. Baptista. 2021. “Guerrilla Urbanism, Guerrilla
Governance: Governing Neighbourhoods in ‘With-COVID’
Times.”Town Planning Review 92 (3): 279–84. doi:10.3828/tpr.
2020.53.
Cheng, S., S. Ganapati, G. Narasimhan, and F. B. Yusuf. 2022. “A
Machine Learning-Based Analysis of 311 Requests in the
Miami-Dade County.”Growth and Change 53 (4): 1–19. doi:10.
1111/grow.12578.
12 Journal of Planning Literature
Chilvers, J., and N. Longhurst. 2016. “Participation in Transition(s):
Reconceiving Public Engagements in Energy Transitions as
Co-Produced, Emergent and Diverse.”Journal of Environmental
Policy & Planning 18 (5): 585–607. doi:10.1080/1523908X.
2015.1110483.
Czischke, D. 2018. “Collaborative Housing and Housing Providers:
Towards an Analytical Framework of Multi-Stakeholder
Collaboration in Housing Co-Production.”International Journal
of Housing Policy 18 (1): 55–81. doi:10.1080/19491247.2017.
1331593.
Donthu, N., S. Kumar, D. Mukherjee, N. Pandey, and W. M. Lim.
2021. “How to Conduct a Bibliometric Analysis: An Overview
and Guidelines.”Journal of Business Research 133: 285–96.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070.
Durose, C., and L. Richardson. 2016. “Designing Public Policy for
Co-Production: Theory, Practice and Change.”In Epilogue:
Co-Producing Research, edited by C. Durose, and L. Richardson,
203–5. Bristol: Bristol University Press, Policy Press.
Falco, E., and R. Kleinhans. 2018. “Digital Participatory Platforms for
Co-Production in Urban Development: A Systematic Review.”
International Journal of E-Planning Research 7 (3): 52–79.
doi:10.4018/IJEPR.2018070105.
Farmer, J., and S. Bradley. 2012. “Measuring the Value of Social
Organisations as Rural Service Providers.”In In Community
Co-Production: Social Enterprise in Remote and Rural
Communities, edited by J. Farmer, C. Hill, and S. A. Munoz,
133–58. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Galuszka, J. 2019. “Co-Production as a Driver of Urban Governance
Transformation? The Case of the Oplan LIKAS Programme in
Metro Manila, Philippines.”Planning Theory & Practice 20 (3):
395–419. doi:10.1080/14649357.2019.1624811.
Goldstein, H., and C. Renault. 2004. “Contributions of Universities to
Regional Economic Development: A Quasi-Experimental
Approach.”Regional Studies 38 (7): 733–46. doi:10.1080/
0034340042000265232.
Haraguchi, M., A. Nishino, N. Kohtake, et al. 2022. “Human Mobility
Data and Analysis for Urban Resilience: A Systematic Review.”
Environmental and Planning B —Urban Analytics and City
Science 49 (5): 1507–35. doi:10.1177/23998083221075634.
Heeres, N., T. Tillema, and J. Arts. 2016. “Dealing with Interrelatedness
and Fragmentation in Road Infrastructure Planning: An Analysis of
Integrated Approaches Throughout the Planning Process in the
Netherlands.”Planning Theory & Practice 17 (3): 421–43. doi:10.
1080/14649357.2016.1193888.
Jasanoff, S. 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science
and Social Order. London: Routledge.
Kelly, J., and P. Lloyd-Williams. 2013. “Master and Apprentice or
Difference and Complementarity? Local Government
Practitioners, Doctoral Studies and Co-Produced Research.”
Local Government Studies 39 (2): 235–52. doi:10.1080/
03003930.2012.688034.
Kirchherr, J., D. Reike, and M. Hekkert. 2017. “Conceptualizing the
Circular Economy: An Analysis of 114 Definitions.”Resources,
Conservation & Recycling 127: 221–32. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.
2017.09.005.
Kleinhans, R., E. Falco, and I. Babelon. 2022. “Conditions for
Networked Co-Production Through Digital Participatory Platforms
in Urban Planning.”European Planning Studies 30 (4): 769–88.
doi:10.1080/09654313.2021.1998387.
Korhonen-Kurki, K., S. Bor, M. Faehnle, et al. 2022. “Empirical
Insights into Knowledge-Weaving Processes in Strategic
Environmental Research.”Journal of Environmental Policy &
Planning 24 (6): 733–48. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2022.2044296.
Krueger, R. 2015. “Overcoming Politics with Markets? The
Co-Production of Sustainable Development in Urban and
Regional Planning.”Planning Theory & Practice 16 (1): 121–5.
doi:10.1080/14649357.2014.991544.
Lakshmanan, T. R., and M. Okumara. 1995. “The Nature and
Evolution of Knowledge Networks in Japanese Manufacturing.”
Papers in Regional Science: The Journal of the RSAI 74 (1): 63–
86. doi:10.1111/j.1435-5597.1995.tb00628.x.
Lindsay, C., S. Pearson, E. Batty, A. M. Cullen, and W. Eadson. 2021.
“Collaborative Innovation and Activation in Urban Labour
Markets.”European Urban and Regional Studies 28 (3): 282–97.
doi:10.1177/09697764211003649.
Mellegard, V., and W. J. Boonstra. 2020. “Craftsmanship as a Carrier
of Indigenous and Local Ecological Knowledge: Photographic
Insights from Sami Duodji and Archipelago Fishing.”Society &
Natural Resources 33 (10): 1252–72. doi:10.1080/08941920.
2020.1729911.
Mitlin, D. 2008. “With and Beyond the State: Co-Production as a
Route to Political Influence, Power and Transformation for
Grassroots Organisations.”Environment and Urbanization 20 (2):
339–60. doi:10.1177/0956247808096117.
Nabatchi, T., A. Sancino, and M. Sicilia. 2017. “Varieties of
Participation in Public Services: The Who, When and What of
Co-Production.”Public Administration Review 77 (5): 766–76.
doi:10.1111/puar.12765.
Nance, E., and L. Ortolano. 2016. “Community Participation in Urban
Sanitation: Experiences in Northeastern Brazil.”Journal of
Planning Education and Research 26 (3): 284–300. doi:10.1177/
0739456X06295028.
Newell, J. P., and J. J. Cousins. 2015. “The Boundaries of Urban
Metabolism: Towards a Political-Industrial Ecology.”Progress in
Human Geography 39 (6): 702–28. doi:10.1177/
0309132514558442.
Noyons, E. 2001. “Bibliometric Mapping of Science in a Policy
Context.”Scientometrics 50 (1): 83–98. doi:10.1023/
A:1005694202977.
Ostrom, E. 1972. “Metropolitan Reform: Propositions Derived from
Two Traditions.”Social Science Quartely 53 (3): 474–93.
Ostrom, E. 1996. “Crossing the Great Divide: Co-Production,
Synergy, and Development.”World Development 24 (6): 1073–
87. doi:10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X.
Parker, G., T. Lynn, and M. Wargent. 2017. “Contestation and
Conservatism in Neighbourhood Planning in England:
Reconciling Agonism and Collaboration?”Planning Theory &
Practice 18 (3): 446–65. doi:10.1080/14649357.2017.1316514.
Pill, M., and N. Bailey. 2012. “Community Empowerment or a Strategy
of Containment? Evaluating Neighbourhood Governance in the City
Lee et al. 13
of Westminster.”Local Government Studies 38 (6): 731–51. doi:10.
1080/03003930.2012.679934.
Polk, M. 2015. “Transdisciplinary Co-Production: Designing and
Testing a Transdisciplinary Research Framework for Societal
Problem Solving.”Futures 65: 110–22. doi:10.1016/j.futures.
2014.11.001.
Potluka, O., and E. Medeiros. 2021. “Administrative and Organizational
Capacities of Civil Society in EU Cohesion Policy.”Regional
Studies:1–11. doi:10.1080/00343404.2021.1986626.
Raymond, C. M., M. Giusti, and S. Barthel. 2018. “An Embodied
Perspective on the Co-Production of Cultural Ecosystem
Services: Toward Embodied Ecosystems.”Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management 61 (5–6): 778–99.
doi:10.1080/09640568.2017.1312300.
Reed, M. G., and P. Abernethy. 2018. “Facilitating Co-Production of
Transdisciplinary Knowledge for Sustainability: Working with
Canadian Biosphere Reserve Practitioners.”Society & Natural
Resources 31 (1): 39–56. doi:10.1080/08941920.2017.1383545.
Refstie, H., and M. Millstein. 2019. “Does Participatory Planning
Promise too much? Global Discourses and the Glass Ceiling of
Participation in Urban Malawi.”Planning Theory & Practice 20
(2): 241–57. doi:10.1080/14649357.2019.1606928.
Reimann, L., B. Vollstedt, J. Koerth, M. Tsakiris, M. Beer, and
A. T. Vafeidis. 2021. “Extending the Shared Socioeconomic
Pathways (SSPs) to Support Local Adaptation Planning —A
Climate Service for Flensburg, Germany.”Futures: 102691.
doi:10.1016/j.futures.2020.102691.
Rizzo, A., A. Habibipour, and A. Stahlbrost. 2021. “Transformative
Thinking and Urban Living Labs in Planning Practice: A Critical
Review and Ongoing Case Studies in Europe.”European Planning
Studies 29 (10): 1739–57. doi:10.1080/09654313.2021.1911955.
Van Eck, N. J., and L. Waltman. 2014. “Visualizing Bibliometric
Networks.”In Measuring Scholarly Impact: Methods and
Practice, edited by Y. Ding, R. Rousseau, and D. Wolfram,
285–320. Cham: Springer.
Wardani, J., J. J. Bos, D. Ramirez-Lovering, and A. G. Capon. 2022.
“Enabling Transdisciplinary Research Collaboration for Planetary
Health: Insights from Practice at the Environment-Health-
Development Nexus.”Sustainable Development 30: 375–92.
doi:10.1002/sd.2280.
Watson, V. 2014. “Co-Production and Collaboration in Planning —
The Difference.”Planning Theory & Practice 15 (1): 62–76.
doi:10.1080/14649357.2013.866266.
Xiao, Y., and M. Watson. 2019. “Guidance on Conducting a
Systematic Literature Review.”Planning Research 39 (1): 93–
112. doi:10.1177/0739456X17723971.
Zhang, J., and K. Hartley. 2022. “Muddling Through the Garbage.”In
In Governing Cities: Asia’s Urban Transformation, edited by
K. Hartley, G. Kuecker, M. Waschak, J. J. Woo, and
C. C. R. Phua, 205–23. Oxon: Routledge.
Author Biographies
Dahae Lee is a postdoctoral researcher at the Technical University of
Dortmund. Her research areas include co-production in planning,
public space governance and management. More recently, she works
on the co-production of public space with youth and the role of trust.
Patricia Feiertag is a postdoctoral researcher at the Technical
University of Dortmund, European Planning Cultures. Her research
areas include comparative research on land use planning, city regional
governance, and co-production.
Lena Unger works as a research associate and PhD candidate at the
Technical University of Dortmund in the Faculty of Spatial
Planning. She is conducting research on conceptualizations of digital
sovereignty and their impact on urban planning and development.
Further research interests and engagements of hers are critical digital
urbanism, participation and co-production.
14 Journal of Planning Literature