research-article

Co-production of Public Service and Information Technology: A Literature Review

Author:

Qianli YuanAuthors Info & Claims

dg.o '19: Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research

Pages 123 - 132

https://doi.org/10.1145/3325112.3325232

Published: 18 June 2019 Publication History

Abstract

Recent years have witnessed growing public administration practitioners’ and researchers’ interests in the involvement of citizens as co-producers of public service design and delivery. With advanced information and communication technologies (ICT) favoring multilateral interactivity and ubiquitous communication, governments are able to expand new opportunities for public service co-production. This literature review contributes to our understanding of current knowledge about the use of ICTs in co-production and the potential outcomes. The results of the review show three models of ICT-enabled co-production: (1) Citizen-sourcing; (2) Automatic Co-production; (3) Government as an Open Platform, each with its unique features in terms of citizens’ contributions, citizens’ capacities, and government openness. This review highlights future developments in electronic sensors and the use of data could lead to new approaches to co-production. ICT-enabled coproduction is promising to bring positive outcomes on public service provision and citizen engagement, yet the effectiveness of those practices is conditioned on factors both inside and outside government organizations. The review also indicates that ICT-enabled co-production is not a panacea and potential dark sides need to be acknowledged. Future research needs to address critical drivers and barriers for governments to utilize different models of ICT-enabled coproduction as well as to evaluate the outcomes of those practices in multiple contexts.

References

[1]

Alford, J. 2009. Engaging Public Sector Clients: From Service-Delivery to Co-Production. Springer.

[2]

Alford, J. 2014. The Multiple Facets of Co-Production: Building on the work of Elinor Ostrom. Public Management Review. 16, 3 (Apr. 2014), 299–316.

[3]

Athey, S. 2017. Beyond prediction: Using big data for policy problems. Science. 355, 6324 (Feb. 2017), 483–485.

[4]

Barrett, M.A. 2013. Big Data and Disease Prevention: From Quantified Self to Quantified Communities. Big Data. 1, 3 (Aug. 2013), 168–175.

[5]

Bertot, J.C. 2010. Crowd-sourcing Transparency: ICTs, Social Media, and Government Transparency Initiatives. Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference on Public Administration Online: Challenges and Opportunities (Puebla, Mexico, 2010), 51–58.

[6]

Bovaird, T. 2007. Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public administration review. 67, 5 (2007), 846–860.

[7]

Bovaird, T. and Loeffler, E. 2012. From Engagement to Co-production: The Contribution of Users and Communities to Outcomes and Public Value. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 23, 4 (Dec. 2012), 1119–1138.

[8]

Brabham, D.C. 2014. Crowdsourcing Applications for Public Health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 46, 2 (Feb. 2014), 179–187.

[9]

Brabham, D.C. 2009. Crowdsourcing the Public Participation Process for Planning Projects. Planning Theory. 8, 3 (Aug. 2009), 242–262.

[10]

Brandsen, T. 2018. Co-Creation and Co-Production in Public Services. Co-Production and Co-Creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services. 6.

[11]

Brandsen, T. and Honingh, M. 2018. Definitions of Co-Production and Co-Creation. Co-Production and Co-Creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services. 9.

[12]

Brandsen, T. and Honingh, M. 2015. Distinguishing Different Types of Coproduction: A Conceptual Analysis Based on the Classical Definitions. Public Administration Review. 76, 3 (2015), 427–435.

[13]

Brudney, J.L. and England, R.E. 1983. Toward a Definition of the Coproduction Concept. Public Administration Review. 43, 1 (1983), 59–65.

[14]

Cardullo, P. and Kitchin, R. 2019. Being a ‘citizen’ in the smart city: up and down the scaffold of smart citizen participation in Dublin, Ireland. GeoJournal. 84, 1 (Feb. 2019), 1–13.

[15]

Castelnovo, W. 2018. Citizens Coproduction, Service Self-Provision and the State 2.0. Network, Smart and Open. Springer, Cham. 109–125.

[16]

Chatfield, A.T. 2013. Tsunami early warnings via Twitter in government: Net-savvy citizens’ co-production of time-critical public information services. Government Information Quarterly. 30, 4 (Oct. 2013), 377–386.

[17]

Chessa, S. 2016. Empowering mobile crowdsensing through social and ad hoc networking. IEEE Communications Magazine. 54, 7 (Jul. 2016), 108–114.

Digital Library

[18]

Chun, S. 2010. Government 2.0: Making connections between citizens, data and government. Information Polity. 1,2 (2010), 1–9.

[19]

Clark, B.Y. 2016. A Framework for Using Crowdsourcing in Government. International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age (IJPADA). 3, 4 (Oct. 2016), 57–75.

[20]

Clark, B.Y. and Brudney, J. 2017. Citizen Representation in City Government-Driven Crowdsourcing. Technical Report #ID 2473543. Social Science Research Network.

[21]

Clark, B.Y. and Shurik, M. 2014. Do 311 Systems Shape Citizen Satisfaction with Local Government?. Technical Report #ID 2491034. Social Science Research Network.

[22]

Concilio, G. 2017. Empowering Citizens with Open Data by Urban Hackathons. 2017 Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM) (May 2017), 125–134.

[23]

Cordella, A. and Paletti, A. 2018. ICTs and value creation in public sector: Manufacturing logic vs service logic. Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age. 23, 2 (Apr. 2018), 125–141.

[24]

Crowdsensing: State of the Art and Privacy Aspects: 2014. https://resources.infosecinstitute.com/crowdsensing-state-art-privacy-aspects/. Accessed: 2019-03-22.

[25]

Dailey, D. and Starbird, K. 2014. Journalists as Crowdsourcerers: Responding to Crisis by Reporting with a Crowd. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing. 23, 4–6 (Dec. 2014), 445–481.

Digital Library

[26]

Dawes, S.S. 2016. Planning and designing open government data programs: An ecosystem approach. Government Information Quarterly. 33, 1 (Jan. 2016), 15–27.

[27]

Desouza, K.C. and Bhagwatwar, A. 2014. Technology-Enabled Participatory Platforms for Civic Engagement: The Case of U.S. Cities. Journal of Urban Technology. 21, 4 (Oct. 2014), 25–50.

[28]

Dutton, W.H. 2011. Networking Distributed Public Expertise: Strategies for Citizen Sourcing Advice to Government. Technical Report #ID 1767870. Social Science Research Network.

[29]

Ernst, C. 2017. Collaboration and crowdsourcing in emergency management. International Journal of Pervasive Computing and Communications. 13, 2 (Jun. 2017), 176–193.

[30]

Evans, L. 2018. Voices in the cloud: social media and trust in Canadian and US local governments. Records Management Journal. 28, 1 (Mar. 2018), 18–46.

[31]

Falco, E. and Kleinhans, R. 2018. Digital Participatory Platforms for Co-Production in Urban Development: A Systematic Review. International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR). 7, 3 (Jul. 2018), 1–27.

Digital Library

[32]

Gagliardi, D. 2017. Information and communication technologies and public participation: interactive maps and value added for citizens. Government Information Quarterly. 34, 1 (Jan. 2017), 153–166.

[33]

Ganapati, S. 2011. Uses of Public Participation Geographic Information Systems Applications in E-Government. Public Administration Review. 71, 3 (2011), 425–434.

[34]

Gao, X. 2018. Networked Co-Production of 311 Services: Investigating the Use of Twitter in Five U.S. Cities. International Journal of Public Administration. 41, 9 (Jul. 2018), 712–724.

[35]

Grossman, G. 2018. Crowdsourcing accountability: ICT for service delivery. World Development. 112, (Dec. 2018), 74–87.

[36]

Haltofova, B. 2018. Using Crowdsourcing to Support Civic Engagement in Strategic Urban Development Planning: A Case Study of Ostrava, Czech Republic. Journal of Competitiveness. 10, 1 (Jun. 2018), 85–103.

[37]

Hartmann, S. 2016. Opportunities and Challenges for Civic Engagement: A Global Investigation of Innovation Competitions. International Journal of Knowledge Society Research. 7, 3 (Jul. 2016), 1–15.

[38]

Heinzelman, J. and Waters, C. 2010. Crowdsourcing Crisis Information in Disaster- Affected Haiti. (2010), 16.

[39]

Hilgers, D. and Ihl, C. 2010. Citizensourcing: Applying the concept of open innovation to the public sector. International Journal of Public Participation. 4, 1 (2010), 67–88.

[40]

Holmes, B. 2011. Citizens’ engagement in policymaking and the design of public services. (2011), 64.

[41]

Johnson, P. and Robinson, P. 2014. Civic Hackathons: Innovation, Procurement, or Civic Engagement?: Civic Hackathon: Procurement or Civic Engagement? Review of Policy Research. 31, 4 (Jul. 2014), 349–357.

[42]

Kahila-Tani, M. 2016. Let the Citizens Map—Public Participation GIS as a Planning Support System in the Helsinki Master Plan Process. Planning Practice & Research. 31, 2 (Apr. 2016), 195–214.

[43]

Kurniawan, M. and de Vries, W.T. 2015. The Contradictory Effects in Efficiency and Citizens’ Participation when Employing Geo-ICT Apps within Local Government. Local Government Studies. 41, 1 (Jan. 2015), 119–136.

[44]

Lee, S. 2012. Open innovation in the public sector of leading countries. Management Decision. 50, 1 (Feb. 2012), 147–162.

[45]

Lember, V. 2018. The Increasing Role of Digital Technologies in Co-Production and Co-Creation. Co-Production and Co-Creation : Engaging Citizens in Public Services. Routledge. 115–127.

[46]

Linders, D. 2012. From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly. 29, 4 (Oct. 2012), 446–454.

[47]

Liu, H.K. 2017. An analysis of online interaction in idea generation for public policies. Information Polity. 22, 2–3 (Jan. 2017), 117–135.

Digital Library

[48]

Liu, H.K. 2017. Crowdsourcing Government: Lessons from Multiple Disciplines. Public Administration Review. 77, 5 (Sep. 2017), 656–667.

[49]

Loeffler, E. and Bovaird, T. 2018. Assessing the Effect of Co-Production on Outcomes, Service Quality and Efficiency. Co-Production and Co-Creation : Engaging Citizens in Public Services. Routledge. 269–280.

[50]

Loeffler, E. and Bovaird, T. 2016. User and Community Co-Production of Public Services: What Does the Evidence Tell Us? International Journal of Public Administration. (Nov. 2016), 1–14.

[51]

Loukis, E. and Charalabidis, Y. 2015. Active and Passive Crowdsourcing in Government. Policy Practice and Digital Science. Springer, Cham. 261–289.

[52]

McBride, K. 2018. Open Government Data Driven Co-creation: Moving Towards Citizen-Government Collaboration. Electronic Government (2018), 184–195.

[53]

McNutt, J.G. 2016. The diffusion of civic technology and open government in the United States. Information Polity. 21, 2 (Jul. 2016), 153–170.

Digital Library

[54]

Medaglia, R. 2012. eParticipation research: Moving characterization forward (2006–2011). Government Information Quarterly. 29, 3 (2012), 346–360.

[55]

Meijer, A. 2016. Coproduction as a structural transformation of the public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 29, 6 (Aug. 2016), 596–611.

[56]

Meijer, A.J. 2012. Co-production in an Information Age: Individual and Community Engagement Supported by New Media. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 23, 4 (Dec. 2012), 1156–1172.

[57]

Meijer, A.J. 2014. New Media and the Coproduction of Safety: An Empirical Analysis of Dutch Practices. The American Review of Public Administration. 44, 1 (Jan. 2014), 17–34.

[58]

Mergel, I. 2015. Open collaboration in the public sector: The case of social coding on GitHub. Government Information Quarterly. 32, 4 (Oct. 2015), 464–472.

[59]

Mergel, I. 2015. Opening Government: Designing Open Innovation Processes to Collaborate With External Problem Solvers. Social Science Computer Review. 33, 5 (Oct. 2015), 599–612.

Digital Library

[60]

Mergel, I. 2014. The Challenges of Challenge.Gov: Adopting Private Sector Business Innovations in the Federal Government. 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Jan. 2014), 2073–2082.

Digital Library

[61]

Mergel, I. and Desouza, K.C. 2013. Implementing Open Innovation in the Public Sector: The Case of Challenge.gov. Public Administration Review. 73, 6 (Nov. 2013), 882–890.

[62]

Moon, M.J. 2017. Evolution of co-production in the information age: crowdsourcing as a model of web-based co-production in Korea. Policy and Society. 0, 0 (Sep. 2017), 1–16.

[63]

Mueller, J. 2018. Citizen Design Science: A strategy for crowd-creative urban design. Cities. 72, (Feb. 2018), 181–188.

[64]

Munro, R. 2013. Crowdsourcing and the crisis-affected community. Information Retrieval Journal. 16, 2 (Apr. 2013), 210–266.

Digital Library

[65]

Nabatchi, T. 2017. Varieties of Participation in Public Services: The Who, When, and What of Coproduction. Public Administration Review. 77, 5 (2017), 766–776.

[66]

Nam, T. 2012. Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0. Government Information Quarterly. 29, 1 (Jan. 2012), 12–20.

[67]

Nambisan, S. 2008. Transforming Government through Collaborative Innovation. Public Manager; Alexandria. 37, 3 (2008), 36–41.

[68]

Needham, D.C. and Carr, S. 2009. Co-production: an emerging evidence base for adult social care transformation. Social Care Institute for Excellence.

[69]

Noveck, B.S. 2009. Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful. Brookings Institution Press.

[70]

Ostrom, E. 1996. Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development. 24, 6 (Jun. 1996), 1073–1087.

[71]

Pak, B. 2017. FixMyStreet Brussels: Socio-Demographic Inequality in Crowdsourced Civic Participation. Journal of Urban Technology. 24, 2 (Apr. 2017), 65–87.

[72]

Paletti, A. 2016. Co-production Through ICT in the Public Sector: When Citizens Reframe the Production of Public Services. Digitally Supported Innovation. Springer, Cham. 141–152.

[73]

Pestoff, V. 2012. Co-production and Third Sector Social Services in Europe: Some Concepts and Evidence. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 23, 4 (Dec. 2012), 1102–1118.

[74]

Royo, S. and Yetano, A. 2015. “Crowdsourcing” as a tool for e-participation: two experiences regarding CO2 emissions at municipal level. Electronic Commerce Research. 15, 3 (Sep. 2015), 323–348.

Digital Library

[75]

Sawhney, N. 2015. Civic Engagement through DIY Urbanism and Collective Networked Action. Planning Practice & Research. 30, 3 (Jun. 2015), 337–354.

[76]

Schmidthuber, L. and Hilgers, D. 2018. Unleashing Innovation beyond Organizational Boundaries: Exploring Citizensourcing Projects. International Journal of Public Administration. 41, 4 (Mar. 2018), 268–283.

[77]

Schuurman, D. 2012. Smart Ideas for Smart Cities: Investigating Crowdsourcing for Generating and Selecting Ideas for ICT Innovation in a City Context. Journal of Theoretical & Applied Electronic Commerce Research. 7, 3 (Dec. 2012), 49–62.

Digital Library

[78]

See, L. 2013. Comparing the Quality of Crowdsourced Data Contributed by Expert and Non-Experts. PLOS ONE. 8, 7 (Jul. 2013), e69958.

[79]

Sokolov, A. and Verevkin, A. 2016. Digitalization and Evolution of Civic Engagement: New Ways of Participation in Public Policy. Digital Transformation and Global Society (2016), 269–274.

[80]

Soomro, K. 2017. Participatory governance in smart cities: the urbanAPI case study. International Journal of Services Technology & Management. 23, 5/6 (Sep. 2017), 419–444.

[81]

Thomas, J.C. 2014. Citizen, Customer, Partner: Engaging the Public in Public Management : Engaging the Public in Public Management. Routledge.

[82]

Toots, M. 2017. Open Data as Enabler of Public Service Co-creation: Exploring the Drivers and Barriers. 2017 Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM) (May 2017), 102–112.

[83]

Torres, L.H. 2007. Citizen sourcing in the public interest. Knowledge Management for Development Journal. 3, 1 (2007), 134–145.

[84]

Vamstad, J. 2012. Co-production and Service Quality: The Case of Cooperative Childcare in Sweden. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 23, 4 (Dec. 2012), 1173–1188.

[85]

Verschuere, B. 2012. Co-production: The State of the Art in Research and the Future Agenda. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 23, 4 (Dec. 2012), 1083–1101.

[86]

Voorberg, W.H. 2015. A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review. 17, 9 (Oct. 2015), 1333–1357.

[87]

Webster, C.W.R. and Leleux, C. 2018. Smart governance: Opportunities for technologically-mediated citizen co-production. Information Polity. 23, 1 (Jan. 2018), 95–110.

Digital Library

[88]

Whitaker, G.P. 1980. Coproduction: Citizen Participation in Service Delivery. Public Administration Review. 40, 3 (May 1980), 240.

[89]

Zuiderwijk, A. and Janssen, M. 2014. Open data policies, their implementation and impact: A framework for comparison. Government Information Quarterly. 31, 1 (Jan. 2014), 17–29.

[90]

Zuiderwijk, A. and Janssen, M. 2014. The Negative Effects of Open Government Data - Investigating the Dark Side of Open Data. Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (New York, NY, USA, 2014), 147–152.

Digital Library

Cited By

Pilemalm SAlkusaibati W(2024)Towards a New Typology of Digitalized Co-production: Implementing Local Emergency Response Initiatives NationwideDigital Government: Research and Practice10.1145/36960075:4(1-24)Online publication date: 16-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3696007
Not ELeonardi CLópez-De-Ipiña DSilva Palacios DSánchez-Corcuera RKazhamiakin RGerosa M(2024)Designing a Digital Environment to Support the Co-production of Public Services: Balancing Multiple Requirements and Governance ConceptsDigital Government: Research and Practice10.1145/36646125:3(1-30)Online publication date: 13-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3664612
Pauluzzo RFedele PDokalskaya IGarlatti A(2024)The role of digital technologies in public sector coproduction and co‐creation: A structured literature reviewFinancial Accountability & Management10.1111/faam.1239140:4(613-640)Online publication date: 29-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12391
Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Value creation, ICT, and co-production in public sector: bureaucracy, opensourcing and crowdsourcing
dg.o '17: Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research

This paper contributes to the e-government literature discussing the role of ICTs as enabler of different modes of production of public services. E-government developments are often associated with organization transformations aimed to increase the ...
Public e-Procurement: Advantages, Limitations and Technological "Pitfalls"
ICEGOV '15-16: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance

Public purchase is an implementing tool of public policy that promotes the public value. Framed by a policy and management strategy, it focus the economic efficiency, but also improves the social promotion of socio-economic reality. In the context of ...
Role of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in Participatory Democracy: a Forerunner to an Egalitarian Society
ICEGOV '17: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance

Governance is being intensely impacted by Information and Communications Technology (ICT) with respect to bolstering government operations, drawing in body politic, provision of public goods and rendering key government services. Commensurate with the ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

dg.o '19: Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research

June 2019

533 pages

ISBN:9781450372046

DOI:10.1145/3325112

Copyright © 2019 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 18 June 2019

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

dg.o 2019

dg.o 2019: 20th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research

June 18 - 20, 2019

Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 150 of 271 submissions, 55%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

19
Total Citations
View Citations
630
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)72
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4

Reflects downloads up to 11 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Pilemalm SAlkusaibati W(2024)Towards a New Typology of Digitalized Co-production: Implementing Local Emergency Response Initiatives NationwideDigital Government: Research and Practice10.1145/36960075:4(1-24)Online publication date: 16-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3696007
Not ELeonardi CLópez-De-Ipiña DSilva Palacios DSánchez-Corcuera RKazhamiakin RGerosa M(2024)Designing a Digital Environment to Support the Co-production of Public Services: Balancing Multiple Requirements and Governance ConceptsDigital Government: Research and Practice10.1145/36646125:3(1-30)Online publication date: 13-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3664612
Pauluzzo RFedele PDokalskaya IGarlatti A(2024)The role of digital technologies in public sector coproduction and co‐creation: A structured literature reviewFinancial Accountability & Management10.1111/faam.1239140:4(613-640)Online publication date: 29-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12391
Uster A(2024)Governmental implementation of information and communication technology at the local level: Digital co‐production during a crisisAustralian Journal of Public Administration10.1111/1467-8500.12657Online publication date: 20-Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12657
Arko A(2024)Does collaborative governance work? Looking at Ghana’s response to the COVID-19 pandemicCogent Social Sciences10.1080/23311886.2024.242043610:1Online publication date: 7-Nov-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2420436
Liu BZhang FXue B(2024)How does policy mix credibility affect citizen participation? Evidence from pilot of household waste sorting policyPolicy Studies10.1080/01442872.2024.2353072(1-31)Online publication date: 21-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2024.2353072
Viano C(2024)Context-based civic blockchain: Localising blockchain for local civic participation.Digital Geography and Society10.1016/j.diggeo.2024.1000906(100090)Online publication date: Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diggeo.2024.100090
Yassin MLimantara N(2023)Systematic Literature Review: Factors Affecting Satisfaction in Using Telehealth Services2023 10th International Conference on ICT for Smart Society (ICISS)10.1109/ICISS59129.2023.10291229(1-5)Online publication date: 6-Sep-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICISS59129.2023.10291229
Pilemalm SAlkusaibati W(2023)Digitalized Co-Production of Emergency Response: To Make Local Initiatives National2023 Ninth International Conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment (ICEDEG)10.1109/ICEDEG58167.2023.10122074(1-8)Online publication date: 3-Apr-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEDEG58167.2023.10122074
Liu ZBhandaram UGarg N(2023)Quantifying spatial under-reporting disparities in resident crowdsourcingNature Computational Science10.1038/s43588-023-00572-64:1(57-65)Online publication date: 5-Dec-2023
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-023-00572-6
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents