Co-producing animal welfare and wildlife preservation: A matter of effective partnerships?

Co-production has become a popular concept in public service delivery. Underlying assumption is that by involving users of public services into the delivery of these services, public service delivery will become more effective... [ view full abstract ]

Co-production has become a popular concept in public service delivery. Underlying assumption is that by involving users of public services into the delivery of these services, public service delivery will become more effective and efficient. To date research to co-production consists of a wide and divers empirical field. In this, citizens can be involved as initiator of co-production project, as co-designer of public services or citizens are asked to implement or execute a service on behalf of public organizations. As such, co-production involves by definition a partnership between citizens on the one hand and public organizations on the other hand (Brandsen & Honingh, 2015). However, research to co-production have only limitedly shown to what extent co-production indeed leads to more effective and efficient services. Therefore, it seems that very often the most important reason to co-produce is to create collaboration structures between actors who traditionally are not collaborating and therefore create legitimacy among these actors (Voorberg et al. 2015).
In this study we examine to what extent this holds in the case of animal welfare and wildlife conservation in Victoria (Australia). Animal welfare and wildlife conservation forms an interesting most unlikely case (Blatter & Haverland, 2009), since outcomes in terms of partnerships and fertile collaboration structures will not be considered as a legitimate outcome by the people involved in animal organizations. Rather, outcomes of these organizations are formulated in terms of the number of animals rescued and/or released back in the wild.

In this research we examined 9 cases of animal welfare and wildlife conservation in Victoria Australia. 5 of these organizations started off as private citizen initiatives. The other 4 organizations were initiated by public or private organizations. As such our case-studies embody at least two different kinds of co-production (citizens involved as initiator and citizens involved as implementer). We consulted involved actors (N=13) and (if available) consulted documents and websites published by the organizations. In doing so, we examined to what extent co-production is successful, what considered as a success and to what extent effective partnerships (Pope & Lewis, 2008) with other partners can be considered as a valid explanation for this success. In doing so, we are able to examine to what extent the main outcome of co-production is the creation of collaboration structures in a context where this is most unlikely to be considered as a valid outcome. Furthermore, by examining these organizations through the lens of the framework of effective partnerships (Pope & Lewis, 2008), we are able to conclude, to what extent the type and character of partnerships can be considered as an explanation for these outcomes.