Co-production establishes an interactive relationship between citizens and public service providers. Successful co-production hence requires the engagement of citizens. Typically, individual characteristics such as age, gender, and income are used to explain why citizens co-produce. In contrast, neighbourhood-level variables receive less attention. Nevertheless, the co-production literature, as well as social capital and urban planning theory, provides good arguments why neighbourhood variables may be relevant. In this study, we examine the administrative records of citizen-initiated contacts in a reporting programme for problems in the public domain. This co-production programme is located in the district of Deurne in the city of Antwerp, Belgium. A multilevel analysis is used to simultaneously assess the impact of neighbourhood characteristics and individual variables. While the individual variables usually found to explain co-production are present in our case, we also find that neighbourhood characteristics significantly explain co-production. Thus, our findings suggest that participation in co-production activities is determined not only by who you are, but also by where you live. Points for practitioners: In order to facilitate co-production and participation, the neighbourhood should be the first place to look. Co-production benefits may disproportionaly accrue to strong citizens, but also to strong neighbourhoods. Social corrections should take both into account. More broadly, a good understanding of the neighbourhoods in the city is needed to grasp citizen behaviour. Place-based policies in the city should focus on the neighbourhood.

This article focuses on the theory of solidarity presented by Émile Durkheim in The Division of Labour in Society ([1893] 1969). Despite its popularity, the distinction between mechanical and organic solidarity has received a lot of criticism. Durkheim allegedly was unable to demonstrate the superior integrating force of modern organic solidarity, while this was his central thesis at the time. A second critique challenges his macrostructural point of view. However, by confronting Durkheim’s classical theory with contemporary work, notably Honneth’s theory of recognition, we can deduce a reformulated framework that is less vulnerable to the afore-mentioned critiques. On the one hand, we specify mechanical and organic solidarity as a dialectical synthesis of both internalized universalistic principles and particularistic emotional orientations. On the other, we incorporate the foregoing typology in a cyclical model that implies interacting processes of inclusion and individualization.

Increasing audience knowledge is often set as a primary objective of risk communication efforts. But is it worthwhile focusing risk communication strategies solely on enhancing specific knowledge? The main research questions tackled in this paper were: (1) if prior audience knowledge related to specific radiation risks is influential for the perception of these risks and the acceptance of communicated messages and (2) if gender, attitudes, risk perception of other radiation risks, confidence in authorities, and living in the vicinity of nuclear/radiological installations may also play an important role in this matter. The goal of this study was to test empirically the mentioned predictors in two independent case studies in different countries. The first case study was an information campaign for iodine pre-distribution in Belgium (N = 1035). The second was the information campaign on long-term radioactive waste disposal in Slovenia (N = 1,200). In both cases, recurrent and intensive communication campaigns were carried out by the authorities aiming, among other things, at increasing specific audience knowledge. Results show that higher prior audience knowledge leads to more willingness to accept communicated messages, but it does not affect people’s perception of the specific risk communicated. In addition, the influence of prior audience knowledge on the acceptance of communicated messages is shown to be no stronger than that of general radiation risk perception. The results in both case studies suggest that effective risk communication has to focus not only on knowledge but also on other more heuristic predictors, such as risk perception or attitudes toward communicated risks.