Association for Public Policy Analysis & Management

How people get around may play a larger than expected role in their availability and willingness to engage in coproduction. If a damaged sidewalk impedes or prevents citizens from completing basic tasks, they might be more inclined to seek a remedy. For an able-bodied, walking commuter, sidewalk conditions will matter more to one’s daily routine than to a driver, potentially motivating the former to coproduce a solution to address such problems.

Prior studies have evaluated how coproduction can be used to monitor and support public transportation systems (Li 2016; Gebauer, Johnson, and Enquist 2010; Ertiö 2015) and active transportation (Zhang 2017). In this research we move beyond these earlier works to examine how the means of transportation may shape the frequency of coproduction. More specifically, we seek to compare coproduction activity for those using primarily traditional public transportation, para-transit (i.e., public transportation for citizens with mobility challenges), active transportation (walking/biking), or their own automobiles.

First, we anticipate that those more reliant on public modes of transportation (and, thus, public services) will be more motivated to engage in coproduction of services to improve service outcomes. Second, as Putnam (2000) proposed in his classic research on “Bowling Alone,” driving as a means of commuting to work lessens the opportunity, and perhaps the interest, in civic engagement; we anticipate that this form of commuting will have the same dampening effect on participation in coproduction activities. Third, we hypothesize that the neighborhood environment may affect the likelihood of coproduction of services, apart from the mode of transportation of residents. That is, citizens living in a neighborhood with higher rates of coproduction activity may be more likely to engage in coproduction themselves, regardless of their primary mode of transportation.

We use survey data from the City of San Francisco, California (2013, 2015, and 2017) in our analysis. The surveys query respondents regarding their use of “311 systems” -- the non-emergency call centers, website portals, and smartphone applications the City provides citizens -- to report, and follow-up, on issues of concern. Local governments use 311 systems to facilitate the reporting, and consequent improvement, of quality of life issues for citizens. Assessments of 311 can help to assure that government services are effective as well as inclusive of residents regardless of their ability or mobility. The data allow us to examine our research questions and hypotheses with suitable controls for age, income, education, race/ethnicity, and neighborhood characteristics.

Preliminary results, using logit models, show that high-frequency public transit and paratransit users are more likely to be higher-level coproducers (for paratransit riders we find increase in odds of 5 times compared to those who commute by automobile). Much exciting work remains to be conducted in this research, but the initial results suggest that how people get around may, indeed, play a role in how they engage in the coproduction of services.