Co-Production Boundaries of Nature-Based Solutions for Urban Regeneration: The Case of a Healthy Corridor

IF 1.7 Q3 URBAN STUDIES
Urban Planning Pub Date : 2024-03-28 DOI:10.17645/up.7306
Beatriz Caitana, G. Moniz
{"title":"Co-Production Boundaries of Nature-Based Solutions for Urban Regeneration: The Case of a Healthy Corridor","authors":"Beatriz Caitana, G. Moniz","doi":"10.17645/up.7306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Co-production, rooted in public collaborative management (Ostrom, 1996) or science and technology (Jasanoff, 2013) evolution, has demonstrated its innovative and transformative character within participatory processes. However, there is little empirical evidence that scrutinises these contexts of interaction. Equality of partnership in many cases is used as a discursive rhetoric that seeks to prescribe co-production above any difficulty, uncertainty, conflict, or unwanted situation. As a starting point, our proposal considers co-production as a social practice, composed of multiple layers and different participatory processes, activities, and strategies. Grounded in co-production approaches, the study draws upon the ongoing evaluation findings of the European project URBiNAT, which focuses on inclusive urban regeneration through nature-based solutions. The qualitative methods of evaluation (interviews and participant observation), applied during the co-production activities in the city of Porto (Portugal), provide evidence of how the various stakeholders—elected politicians, citizens, technicians, and researchers—participate in the co-production dynamic. The boundaries of a multi-stakeholder process are revealed with the goal of implementing healthy corridors in peripheral neighbourhoods. The intended evaluation analysis lies in the techniques, the agents, the dynamics, the knowledge, and the degrees of co-production. This analysis will contribute to the lack of explicit consideration of the impacts of nature-based solutions in urban regeneration pathways, especially those related to the social fabric underlined in Dumitru et al. (2020).","PeriodicalId":51735,"journal":{"name":"Urban Planning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urban Planning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17645/up.7306","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"URBAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Co-production, rooted in public collaborative management (Ostrom, 1996) or science and technology (Jasanoff, 2013) evolution, has demonstrated its innovative and transformative character within participatory processes. However, there is little empirical evidence that scrutinises these contexts of interaction. Equality of partnership in many cases is used as a discursive rhetoric that seeks to prescribe co-production above any difficulty, uncertainty, conflict, or unwanted situation. As a starting point, our proposal considers co-production as a social practice, composed of multiple layers and different participatory processes, activities, and strategies. Grounded in co-production approaches, the study draws upon the ongoing evaluation findings of the European project URBiNAT, which focuses on inclusive urban regeneration through nature-based solutions. The qualitative methods of evaluation (interviews and participant observation), applied during the co-production activities in the city of Porto (Portugal), provide evidence of how the various stakeholders—elected politicians, citizens, technicians, and researchers—participate in the co-production dynamic. The boundaries of a multi-stakeholder process are revealed with the goal of implementing healthy corridors in peripheral neighbourhoods. The intended evaluation analysis lies in the techniques, the agents, the dynamics, the knowledge, and the degrees of co-production. This analysis will contribute to the lack of explicit consideration of the impacts of nature-based solutions in urban regeneration pathways, especially those related to the social fabric underlined in Dumitru et al. (2020).
基于自然的城市更新解决方案的共同生产边界:健康走廊案例
共同生产植根于公共合作管理(Ostrom,1996 年)或科学与技术(Jasanoff,2013 年)的发展,在参与式进程中显示出其创新性和变革性。然而,对这些互动环境进行仔细研究的实证证据却很少。在许多情况下,伙伴关系的平等性被用作一种话语修辞,试图将共同生产置于任何困难、不确定性、冲突或不希望出现的情况之上。作为出发点,我们的建议将共同生产视为一种社会实践,由多层次、不同的参与过程、活动和战略组成。本研究以共同生产方式为基础,借鉴了欧洲项目 URBiNAT 正在进行的评估结果,该项目的重点是通过基于自然的解决方案实现包容性城市复兴。在葡萄牙波尔图市开展共同生产活动期间,采用了定性评估方法(访谈和参与观察),为各利益相关方--当选政治家、市民、技术人员和研究人员--如何参与共同生产活动提供了证据。多方利益相关者进程的界限被揭示出来,其目标是在边缘街区实施健康走廊。评估分析的目的在于共同生产的技术、代理人、动态、知识和程度。这项分析将有助于解决在城市复兴路径中缺乏对基于自然的解决方案影响的明确考虑的问题,尤其是那些与 Dumitru 等人(2020 年)所强调的社会结构相关的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Urban Planning
Urban Planning URBAN STUDIES-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.60%
发文量
124
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Urban Planning is a new international peer-reviewed open access journal of urban studies aimed at advancing understandings and ideas of humankind’s habitats – villages, towns, cities, megacities – in order to promote progress and quality of life. The journal brings urban science and urban planning together with other cross-disciplinary fields such as sociology, ecology, psychology, technology, politics, philosophy, geography, environmental science, economics, maths and computer science, to understand processes influencing urban forms and structures, their relations with environment and life quality, with the final aim to identify patterns towards progress and quality of life.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信