数字平台是城市共同生产的(阻碍)因素:来自印度班加罗尔的证据

IF 1.7 Q3 URBAN STUDIES
Urban Planning Pub Date : 2024-02-26 DOI:10.17645/up.7262
Deepa Kylasam Iyer, Francis Kuriakose
{"title":"数字平台是城市共同生产的(阻碍)因素:来自印度班加罗尔的证据","authors":"Deepa Kylasam Iyer, Francis Kuriakose","doi":"10.17645/up.7262","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines how digital platforms focused on citizen engagement affect urban transformation based on multiple case studies from Bengaluru, India. The research question is: What type of initiatives and designs of digital citizen platforms enable co-production? Co-production is defined as the use of assets and resources between the public sector and citizens to produce better outcomes and improve the efficiency of urban services. The study uses qualitative and quantitative approaches. Evaluative metrics of citizen engagement in digital platforms are done at two levels: platform metrics and initiative metrics. Each platform is evaluated under several variables that indicate the type of ownership, period of operation, aims and types of initiatives, and impact and levels of engagement. Then, the digital platforms are mapped for the extent of digital co-production that matches the type of digital interaction with a form of citizen–government relationship. The findings indicate that the orientation of digital co-production, where it exists, seems to be around the dimensions of co-testing and co-evaluation rather than co-design and co-financing. Furthermore, the digital platforms under study primarily view citizens as users rather than collaborators, limiting the scope of digital co-production. The involvement of urban local governments and private partners in a single platform strengthens the degree of citizen engagement, including the scope for co-production. Finally, there is a strong offline counterpart to citizen engagement through digital platforms where true co-production exists.","PeriodicalId":51735,"journal":{"name":"Urban Planning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Digital Platforms as (Dis)Enablers of Urban Co-Production: Evidence From Bengaluru, India\",\"authors\":\"Deepa Kylasam Iyer, Francis Kuriakose\",\"doi\":\"10.17645/up.7262\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines how digital platforms focused on citizen engagement affect urban transformation based on multiple case studies from Bengaluru, India. The research question is: What type of initiatives and designs of digital citizen platforms enable co-production? Co-production is defined as the use of assets and resources between the public sector and citizens to produce better outcomes and improve the efficiency of urban services. The study uses qualitative and quantitative approaches. Evaluative metrics of citizen engagement in digital platforms are done at two levels: platform metrics and initiative metrics. Each platform is evaluated under several variables that indicate the type of ownership, period of operation, aims and types of initiatives, and impact and levels of engagement. Then, the digital platforms are mapped for the extent of digital co-production that matches the type of digital interaction with a form of citizen–government relationship. The findings indicate that the orientation of digital co-production, where it exists, seems to be around the dimensions of co-testing and co-evaluation rather than co-design and co-financing. Furthermore, the digital platforms under study primarily view citizens as users rather than collaborators, limiting the scope of digital co-production. The involvement of urban local governments and private partners in a single platform strengthens the degree of citizen engagement, including the scope for co-production. Finally, there is a strong offline counterpart to citizen engagement through digital platforms where true co-production exists.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51735,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urban Planning\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-26\",\"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.7262\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"URBAN STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urban Planning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17645/up.7262","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

摘要

本文基于印度班加罗尔的多个案例研究,探讨了以市民参与为重点的数字平台如何影响城市转型。研究的问题是:哪种类型的数字公民平台倡议和设计能够促进共同生产?共同生产被定义为公共部门和市民之间利用资产和资源来产生更好的结果并提高城市服务的效率。本研究采用定性和定量方法。市民参与数字平台的评价指标分为两个层面:平台指标和倡议指标。每个平台都要根据几个变量进行评估,其中包括所有权类型、运营时间、目标和倡议类型,以及参与的影响和水平。然后,根据数字互动类型与公民-政府关系形式相匹配的数字共同生产程度,对数字平台进行映射。研究结果表明,数字合作生产的方向似乎是围绕共同测试和共同评估,而不是共同设计和共同融资。此外,所研究的数字平台主要将公民视为用户而非合作者,从而限制了数字共同生产的范围。城市地方政府和私人合作伙伴参与到一个平台中,可以加强公民的参与程度,包括共同生产的范围。最后,在真正的共同制作中,通过数字平台实现的公民参与有很强的线下对应性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Digital Platforms as (Dis)Enablers of Urban Co-Production: Evidence From Bengaluru, India
This article examines how digital platforms focused on citizen engagement affect urban transformation based on multiple case studies from Bengaluru, India. The research question is: What type of initiatives and designs of digital citizen platforms enable co-production? Co-production is defined as the use of assets and resources between the public sector and citizens to produce better outcomes and improve the efficiency of urban services. The study uses qualitative and quantitative approaches. Evaluative metrics of citizen engagement in digital platforms are done at two levels: platform metrics and initiative metrics. Each platform is evaluated under several variables that indicate the type of ownership, period of operation, aims and types of initiatives, and impact and levels of engagement. Then, the digital platforms are mapped for the extent of digital co-production that matches the type of digital interaction with a form of citizen–government relationship. The findings indicate that the orientation of digital co-production, where it exists, seems to be around the dimensions of co-testing and co-evaluation rather than co-design and co-financing. Furthermore, the digital platforms under study primarily view citizens as users rather than collaborators, limiting the scope of digital co-production. The involvement of urban local governments and private partners in a single platform strengthens the degree of citizen engagement, including the scope for co-production. Finally, there is a strong offline counterpart to citizen engagement through digital platforms where true co-production exists.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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