IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hig/wpaper/07-urb-2018.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Residents’ Coproduction Activities As The Basis Of Urban Development: The Case Of The Football World Cup In Volgograd

Author

Listed:
  • Aleksandra Sazhina

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

Abstract

Coproduction is a practice that encourages active interaction between customers and producers in creating products, services or events. In the urban management framework the above-mentioned concept is just starting to be put into practice and is characterized by the involvement of residents in different city activities' organization including mega events managed by local authorities. The new types of interaction between residents and authorities include participation of residents as volunteers in organization and carrying out of different city events and activities, mass collaboration or crowdsourcing, crowdfunding, recommendations to external stakeholders, couchsurfing, and slum tourism. The article examines the theoretical aspects of coproduction concept introduction in urban development, describes the types of interaction between residents and local authorities as well as the benefits of this interaction. The author has developed and empirically verified a conceptual model for willingness assessment of residents to participate in coproduction of mega events based on the example of the city of Volgograd which hosted one of the Football World Cup stages.

Suggested Citation

  • Aleksandra Sazhina, 2018. "Residents’ Coproduction Activities As The Basis Of Urban Development: The Case Of The Football World Cup In Volgograd," HSE Working papers WP BRP 07/URB/2018, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hig:wpaper:07/urb/2018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://wp.hse.ru/data/2018/12/10/1145002072/07URB2016.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. Sabuhoro, Jean Bosco & Larue, Bruno, 1997. "The market efficiency hypothesis: The case of coffee and cocoa futures," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 16(3), pages 171-184, August.
    4. Adams, Renee B. & Santos, Joao A.C., 2006. "Identifying the effect of managerial control on firm performance," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1-2), pages 55-85, April.
    5. Victor Pestoff, 2006. "Citizens and co-production of welfare services," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(4), pages 503-519, December.
    6. R. P. Borges & B. Ribeiro & A. R.G. Costa & C. Silva & R. C. da Silva & G. Evans & A. P. Gonçalves & M. M. Cruz & M. Godinho, 2011. "Magnetic and transport properties of transition-metal implanted ZnO single crystals," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 79(2), pages 185-195, January.
    7. Hanemann, W Michael, 1991. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 635-647, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Clive L Spash, 2008. "The Contingent Valuation Method: Retrospect and Prospect," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2008-04, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    2. Tonin, Stefania, 2018. "Citizens’ perspectives on marine protected areas as a governance strategy to effectively preserve marine ecosystem services and biodiversity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 189-200.
    3. Stern, David I., 1997. "Limits to substitution and irreversibility in production and consumption: A neoclassical interpretation of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 197-215, June.
    4. Charalampia N. Anastasiou & Kiriaki M. Keramitsoglou & Nikos Kalogeras & Maria I. Tsagkaraki & Ioanna Kalatzi & Konstantinos P. Tsagarakis, 2017. "Can the “Euro-Leaf” Logo Affect Consumers’ Willingness-To-Buy and Willingness-To-Pay for Organic Food and Attract Consumers’ Preferences? An Empirical Study in Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-17, August.
    5. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Henrik Svedsäter, 2003. "Economic Valuation of the Environment: How Citizens Make Sense of Contingent Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(1), pages 122-135.
    7. Nyborg, Karine, 2000. "Homo Economicus and Homo Politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 305-322, July.
    8. Blamey, Russell K. & Common, Mick S. & Quiggin, John C., 1995. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens?," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(3), pages 1-26, December.
    9. Clark, Judy & Burgess, Jacquelin & Harrison, Carolyn M., 2000. ""I struggled with this money business": respondents' perspectives on contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 45-62, April.
    10. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    11. Dangelico, Rosa Maria & Alvino, Letizia & Fraccascia, Luca, 2022. "Investigating the antecedents of consumer behavioral intention for sustainable fashion products: Evidence from a large survey of Italian consumers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    12. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    13. Carson, Richard & Flores, Nicholas E. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 1998. "Sequencing and Valuing Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 314-323, November.
    14. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    15. Meinard, Yves & Remy, Alice & Schmid, Bernhard, 2017. "Measuring Impartial Preference for Biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 45-54.
    16. Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2016. "Constructing markets: environmental economics and the contingent valuation controversy," MPRA Paper 78814, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Ivo Bischoff, 2008. "Endowment effect theory, prediction bias and publicly provided goods: an experimental study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(3), pages 283-296, March.
    18. Bruno S. Frey & Simon Luechinger, 2005. "Measuring terrorism," Chapters, in: Alain Marciano & Jean-Michel Josselin (ed.), Law and the State, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Nick Hanley & Sergio Colombo & Bengt Kriström & Fiona Watson, 2009. "Accounting for Negative, Zero and Positive Willingness to Pay for Landscape Change in a National Park," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 1-16, February.
    20. Lisa A. Robinson & James K. Hammitt, 2013. "Behavioral economics and the conduct of benefit–cost analysis: towards principles and standards," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 10, pages 317-363, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    coproduction; residents; urban development; mega events; place marketing;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R19 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Other

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hig:wpaper:07/urb/2018. 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: Shamil Abdulaev or Shamil Abdulaev (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hsecoru.html .

    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.