Defining Co-Production: A Review of the Planning Literature

3Citations
Citations of this article
23Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

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 framework for defining co-production in planning theory and practice.

References Powered by Scopus

How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines

5382Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions

4627Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order

2947Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Co-production of privately owned public space: Who, why, when, and how?

4Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Co-Production in the Urban Setting: Fostering Definitional and Conceptual Clarity Through Comparative Research

1Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Co-production, co-creation or co-design of public space? A systematic review

0Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lee, D., Feiertag, P., & Unger, L. (2024). Defining Co-Production: A Review of the Planning Literature. Journal of Planning Literature, 39(2), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/08854122231219919

Readers over time

‘23‘24‘250481216

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 6

60%

Researcher 3

30%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

10%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Social Sciences 4

44%

Environmental Science 2

22%

Design 2

22%

Arts and Humanities 1

11%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0