IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i18p7736-d415696.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conditions for Co-Creation in Infrastructure Projects: Experiences from the Overdiepse Polder Project (The Netherlands)

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Alina Rădulescu

    (Department of Spatial Planning and Environment, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, Landleven 1, 9747 AD Groningen, The Netherlands
    Rijkswaterstaat, Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, 3526 LA Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Wim Leendertse

    (Department of Spatial Planning and Environment, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, Landleven 1, 9747 AD Groningen, The Netherlands
    Rijkswaterstaat, Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, 3526 LA Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Jos Arts

    (Department of Spatial Planning and Environment, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, Landleven 1, 9747 AD Groningen, The Netherlands)

Abstract

In recent decades, stakeholder engagement had been gaining momentum in planning practice. More recently, at the heart of the discussions about collaborative endeavours stands the concept of co-creation, an umbrella term for multiple forms of collaboration between stakeholders, which is seen as an approach for fostering new and innovative solutions for highly complex challenges. Despite this idyllic representation, co-creation does not always lead to positive outcomes. One reason is that co-creation poses major operationalization challenges, which make it a significant subject for research. In this article, we explore the conditions that allow co-creation practices aimed at fostering innovation and creativity in infrastructure projects to take place and flourish. Based on the review of literature on co-creation, on the analysis of project-related documents, and on in-depth, semi-structured interviews with the stakeholders, this article follows the co-creation process of the Overdiepse polder project, part of the innovative Dutch water management programme ‘Room for the River’. The results show that co-creation is an iterative process that depends on conditions related to the context, the characteristics of the stakeholders and their relationships, but also on the design and dynamics of the process. The results of this study can be of help to researchers, academics, and professionals interested in studying or applying co-creative approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Alina Rădulescu & Wim Leendertse & Jos Arts, 2020. "Conditions for Co-Creation in Infrastructure Projects: Experiences from the Overdiepse Polder Project (The Netherlands)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-21, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:18:p:7736-:d:415696
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/18/7736/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/18/7736/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. K.B. Akhilesh, 2017. "Co-Creation and Learning," SpringerBriefs in Business, Springer, number 978-81-322-3679-5, October.
    2. K. B. Akhilesh, 2017. "Co-Creation and Learning," SpringerBriefs in Business, in: Co-Creation and Learning, chapter 0, pages 45-54, Springer.
    3. Elisabeth Schauppenlehner-Kloyber & Marianne Penker, 2016. "Between Participation and Collective Action—From Occasional Liaisons towards Long-Term Co-Management for Urban Resilience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    4. Barbara C. Crosby & Paul ‘t Hart & Jacob Torfing, 2017. "Public value creation through collaborative innovation," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(5), pages 655-669, May.
    5. Arwin van Buuren & Ingmar van Meerkerk & Cecilia Tortajada, 2019. "Understanding emergent participation practices in water governance," International Journal of Water Resources Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(3), pages 367-382, May.
    6. Emma Puerari & Jotte I. J. C. De Koning & Timo Von Wirth & Philip M. Karré & Ingrid J. Mulder & Derk A. Loorbach, 2018. "Co-Creation Dynamics in Urban Living Labs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    7. W. H. Voorberg & V. J. J. M. Bekkers & L. G. Tummers, 2015. "A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(9), pages 1333-1357, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michal Hrivnák & Peter Moritz & Katarína Melichová & Oľga Roháčiková & Lucia Pospišová, 2021. "Designing the Participation on Local Development Planning: From Literature Review to Adaptive Framework for Practice," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-25, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Benoît Desmarchelier & Faridah Djellal & Faïz Gallouj, 2018. "Public Service Innovation Networks (PSINs): Collaborating for Innovation and Value Creation," Working Papers halshs-01934275, HAL.
    2. Ada Scupola & Lars Fuglsang & Faiz Gallouj & Anne Vorre Hansen, 2021. "Understandings of Social Innovation within the Danish Public Sector: A Literature Review," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, May.
    3. Candel, Melissa & Paulsson, Jenny, 2023. "Enhancing public value with co-creation in public land development: The role of municipalities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    4. DIF Aicha, 2021. "Co-Creation Strategy, New Challenges in Entrepreneurship Education," GATR Journals jber205, Global Academy of Training and Research (GATR) Enterprise.
    5. Sujeetha Selvakkumaran & Erik O. Ahlgren, 2018. "Model-Based Exploration of Co-Creation Efforts: The Case of Solar Photovoltaics (PV) in Skåne, Sweden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-23, October.
    6. Michael Duijn & Jitske Van Popering-Verkerk, 2018. "Integrated Public Value Creation through Community Initiatives—Evidence from Dutch Water Management," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-14, December.
    7. Desmarchelier, Benoît & Djellal, Faridah & Gallouj, Faïz, 2021. "Which innovation regime for public service innovation networks for social innovation (PSINSIs)? Lessons from a European cases database," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    8. Jacob Torfing & Eva Sørensen, 2019. "Interactive Political Leadership in Theory and Practice: How Elected Politicians May Benefit from Co-Creating Public Value Outcomes," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, July.
    9. Petteri Repo & Kaisa Matschoss, 2019. "Social Innovation for Sustainability Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, December.
    10. Wynen, Jan & Boon, Jan & Kleizen, Bjorn & Verhoest, Koen, 2020. "How multiple organizational changes shape managerial support for innovative work behavior : Evidence from the Australian Public Service," Other publications TiSEM 4f721d76-0c44-4d72-a494-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Miquel Salvador & David Sancho, 2021. "The Role of Local Government in the Drive for Sustainable Development Public Policies. An Analytical Framework Based on Institutional Capacities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-17, May.
    12. Lindsay P. Galway & Charles Z. Levkoe & Rachel L. W. Portinga & Kathryn Milun, 2021. "A Scoping Review Examining Governance, Co-Creation, and Social and Ecological Justice in Living Labs Literature," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, December.
    13. Philippe BANCE & Marie-J. BOUCHARD & Dorothea GREILING, 2022. "Conclusions and Directions for further Research," CIRIEC Studies Series, in: Philippe BANCE & Marie-J. BOUCHARD & Dorothea GREILING & CIRIEC (ed.), New perspectives in the co-production of public policies, public services and common goods, volume 3, chapter 0, pages 259-274, CIRIEC - Université de Liège.
    14. Pietro Previtali & Eugenio Salvati, 2021. "Area Social Plans and Local Governance of Interorganizational Collaborations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, January.
    15. Hugo A López & Pedro Ponce & Arturo Molina & María Soledad Ramírez-Montoya & Edgar Lopez-Caudana, 2021. "Design Framework Based on TEC21 Educational Model and Education 4.0 Implemented in a Capstone Project: A Case Study of an Electric Vehicle Suspension System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-22, May.
    16. Filippetti, Andrea & Vezzani, Antonio, 2022. "The political economy of public research, or why some governments commit to research more than others," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    17. Anne Seneca Terkelsen & Christian Tolstrup Wester & Gabriel Gulis & Jørgen Jespersen & Pernille Tanggaard Andersen, 2022. "Co-Creation and Co-Production of Health Promoting Activities Addressing Older People—A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-20, October.
    18. Antonella Zucchella & Pietro Previtali & Roger Strange, 2022. "Proactive and reactive views in the transition towards circular business models. A grounded study in the plastic packaging industry," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 1073-1102, September.
    19. Finocchiaro Castro, Massimo & Guccio, Calogero & Rizzo, Ilde, 2023. "How "one-size-fits-all" public works contract does it better? An assessment of infrastructure provision in Italy," EconStor Preprints 270729, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    20. Schnitzler, Tobias Joachim, 2020. "Success factors of transformative learning for sustainable development," ÖFSE-Forum, Austrian Foundation for Development Research (ÖFSE), volume 75, number 75, Juni.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:18:p:7736-:d:415696. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.