Uncharted Territoriality in Coproduction: The Motivations for 311 Reporting
研究比较了公民参与共同生产服务的两种动机模型，发现领域性（对空间的认同和责任感）是居民使用311系统报告社区问题的重要驱动力，而公民活动和投票则更多影响非居住区的报告行为。
A central question for programs that involve constituents in the coproduction of government services is: what motivates constituents to participate? This study compares two perspectives on this question: the traditional public-as-citizen model treats participation as a function of a general civic disposition that extends to many forms of civic and political participation (e.g. volunteering and voting); and we introduce the public-as-partner model, which argues that a given program might rely on any of the diverse array of human motivations, depending on the specific nature of participation required. We compare these using 311 systems, which provide a hotline and online tools for requesting nonemergency government services (e.g. graffiti removal), evaluating whether using 311 to contribute to neighborhood maintenance primarily reflects a civic disposition or is additionally motivated by a capacity for territoriality (i.e. identifying with and claiming responsibility for spaces), per the public-as-partner model. The study links three forms of information at the individual level for a sample of 311 users from Boston, Massachusetts (n = 722): objective reporting activity, derived from the 311 archive; a user survey including self-reports of civic activities and territorial motives; and voter registration records. Controlling for demographics and the contextual effects of home neighborhood, higher territorial motives predicted a greater likelihood of a person reporting any issues of public concern and reporting more issues over a broader geographical range in one’s home neighborhood (where >80% of reports are made). Civic activities and voting predicted a greater likelihood of reporting in nonhome neighborhoods (e.g. work). This dichotomy highlights the distinction between the two models in conceptualizing the motivations for participation in coproduction. The article explores how to extend this logic to the assessment of participation, outreach, and disparities in access across programs.