How Does the Scalar Restructuring of Community Public Space Shape Community Co-Production? Evidence from the Community Centers in Shanghai

Abstract

In urban regeneration, co-production has become a significant approach for shaping public space in urban communities. While existing studies focus on the processes and stakeholders involved in co-production of community public space (CPS), few have examined the influence of structural factors. Based on the politics of scale, this study uses thematic analysis within an embedded case study of community centers in Shanghai, China, to analyze the impact of scalar restructuring on community co-production across three dimensions: material scale, organizational scale, and discursive scale. The study finds that local governments actively reshape public space through scalar restructuring, thereby transforming power relations among participants and promoting community co-production. In response to different community conditions and dilemmas, local governments adopt context-specific scalar restructuring strategies. When implementing scalar restructuring strategies such as downscaling, upscaling and scalar recompositing, three corresponding patterns of community co-production often emerge: bonded, procedural, and bridged. This paper contributes by providing a new perspective on the mechanism of community co-production, identifying novel patterns of community co-production and refining the scalar restructuring strategies. It moves beyond spatial limitations and captures the co-production of CPS through a broader lens of power dynamics.

1. Introduction

Urban community public space, such as neighborhood centers, green spaces and gardens, are important venues for free access and everyday social life [1] (pp. 263–287). Although the beneficiaries of community public space (CPS)are wide-ranging, the traditional governance perspective that regards municipal authorities as the sole entity responsible for CPS has become increasingly inadequate in addressing the demands of rapidly changing urban development. There is a growing need to involve residents, communities, and other actors in the production of CPS [2]. Citizen participation in the co-production of CPS complements both planned and spontaneous urban morphogenesis [3], occupying a space between these two extremes. Co-production, defined as “the voluntary or involuntary participating in any of the design, management, delivery, and/or evaluation of public service” [4], has become an increasingly popular participatory approach in the production of urban public spaces. In Chinese urbanization, the production of space is driven by the interlaced relationship between the governmental power, capital and social relations [5] (pp. 179–185). Although some scholars have raised concerns that co-production in urban public space may result in spatial injustice and the loss of social equity, such as the emergence of privatization and commercialization tendencies [6], disparities in participants’ knowledge, resources, capabilities [7], and limited representativeness [8], as well as increased transaction costs [9], co-production still represents a possible solution for sharing costs, rights and responsibilities in public space, especially in the context of increasing public service demand and persistent fiscal constraints [10,11,12].

Existing studies on community co-production have mainly focused on the actors, process, and outcome, identifying various influencing factors [13,14]. However, these studies predominantly emphasize individual or procedural aspect of co-production, and structural factors have received less attention. This neglects the critical influence of scale adjustments specific to community co-production. Micro-scale and people-oriented planning practices have received attention [15]. At the scale of 15-Minute Community Life Circle, high-quality public spaces are provided to enhance social interaction [16]. “Scale” is understood as the division, configuration, and representation of power within specific geographic or hierarchical spaces [17], reflecting how power relations are geographically constituted and maintained [18]. Scalar restructuring refers to the process through which the size, hierarchy, and relationships of the specific spatial unit [19]. Moreover, researchers have observed that although the Chinese urban government remains a dominant actor in spatial governance, diverse actors, alongside increasing civic participation in public space production, interact with the state across multiple scales [20]. At present, existing research remains limited, often exploring either scalar restructuring or co-production in CPS, but rarely the relationship between them. Therefore, it is imperative to clarify the impact of scalar restructuring on co-production in CPS to better understand its structural drivers.

This paper seeks to elucidate the relationship between scalar restructuring and the co-production of CPS, aiming to clarify its evolving characteristics, underlying patterns and contribute to the theorizing of co-production of public space. Rather than focusing solely on issues like privatization or spatial injustice brought by marketization or socialization, this study explores an alternative perspective on shaping of sustainable public space in urban communities. Community conditions are inherently diverse and present distinct challenges for public space. Local governments often adopt scalar restructuring strategies as key tools for urban regeneration [21]. In the process of CPS renewal, scalar restructuring not only reshapes spatial configurations but also brings in new actors, altering the power dynamics and thus influencing co-production [4,6]. Changes from scalar restructuring may affect community co-production outcomes. This study addresses a key question: how does scalar restructuring of CPS shape community co-production?

This study contributes to existing literature in three key dimensions. First, it proposes a framework that links scalar restructuring to co-production outcomes, enhancing a deeper understanding of participatory governance. Second, it reinterprets community co-production patterns, shedding light on the relationship between scalar restructuring and co-production, thereby advancing the discourse on co-production in urban governance. Third, it enriches the literature on scalar restructuring by emphasizing its adaptability and identifying three types of scalar strategies and their respective impacts.

The case of Shanghai’s community centers offers an ideal context for examining this question. In Shanghai, the government has restructured the public space situated between subdistricts (townships) and residential neighborhoods. Residents are encouraged to participate in the regeneration and maintenance of CPS, to improve their accessibility and sustainability of the spaces. Drawing on an embedded case study of community centers in District X, Shanghai, along with thematic analysis, this study analyzes how scalar restructuring shapes community co-production. Initiated in late 2016, these projects have been sustained over time and are recognized for their co-productive practices.

The remainder of this paper is structured into five sections. Section 2 reviews the relevant literature and outlines a theoretical framework within the context of CPS regeneration and co-production. Section 3 explains the research design and case selection. Section 4 presents the embedded case in Shanghai, analyzing co-production practices, communities’ challenges, and scale reconfiguration, and then revealing the mechanism by which scalar restructuring shapes community co-production. Section 5 provides further discussion of the findings and their implications. Section 6 concludes the study’s main contributions and limitations.

2. Literature Review and Analytical Framework

2.1. Co-Production of Community Public Space

Urban public spaces have evolved from open outdoor areas to include indoor venues like malls and cafés [22] (p. 50). While definitions of public space vary, many are outdated due to changing ownership and control in cities. Drawing on Oldenburg’s concept of the “third place” [23] (pp. 21–46), Francis et al. define CPS as “the meeting or gathering places that are generally open and accessible to the public beyond home and work, fostering resident interaction and contact” [24]. Parks, community centers, and shops are commonly regarded as CPS. Previous studies have shown that there is a close connection between community and its public space [25,26]. On one hand, CPS generates broad value for community development and residents’ well-being. On the other hand, when community is involved in planning and managing, public space is more likely to be sustained and maintained by establishing community awareness and strengthening participation.

Over the past decade, the concept of co-production, rooted in public service research by Elinor Ostrom in 1972, has received growing attention in urban planning. Such participatory arrangements align well with contemporary efforts in public space regeneration. Scholars have emphasized the role of users in shaping urban spaces, advocating for citizen control beyond state and capitalist influence [27,28]. The contributions of citizens in co-production, including time, knowledge, experience, financial support, and other resources, are vital to the process [6]. While many studies have focused on community co-production in terms of actor-related factors, such as participants’ roles and interrelations [13], and procedural factors, including citizens’ incentives, behaviors, and collaborative configurations [14,29], others have also examined how governance, social context and structural conditions also affect co-production [30,31]. The co-production of public space encourages meaningful stakeholder engagement, in which officials, designers, managers, and users collaboratively participate and maintain public space, providing a flexible platform to build social capital while gathering and harnessing stakeholders’ insights and competencies [32,33].

In addition, studies increasingly note power imbalances among actors in co-production [11,34]. Although co-production theoretically implies equality among participants, inevitable disparities in access to information and resources often lead to unequal power dynamics [35]. In particular, the co-production process in Chinese cities is often characterized by government-led initiatives [36]. As an intermediary between the state and household, the community forms a meso-level institutional layer, which generates new authority and promotes civic participation by restructuring actor roles [21].

However, the impact of scale restructuring on co-production has not been fully discussed. A comprehensive understanding of the scale and the restructuring of urban communities remains challenging for existing research on community co-production.

2.2. The Logic of Scalar Restructuring for Community Public Space

Scale is a key concept in urban studies for analyzing spatial dynamics, initially used to explain innovations in the spatial organization of European regions [37]. The study of scale spans multiple disciplines, including cartography, architecture, and human geography. Scale captures “the spatial or temporal dimension of a phenomenon” [38], while scaling denotes “the translation of information between or across spatial and temporal scales or organizational levels” [38]. Together, they involve the spatially constructed dimensions of power and social relations. For example, the subdistrict-neighborhood system is the hierarchical scale of grassroots governance in urban China. Multiple neighborhoods form a community which vary in size, this related to the spatial scale. Corresponding to the reconfiguration of geographic elements across boundaries, the concept of “scalar restructuring”, also rescaling, refers to the process through which power and control are shifted and reconstructed across scales. It has emerged as a spatial strategy for addressing institutional constraints at urban, regional, and national levels [39,40]. It involves the reconfiguration of spatial arenas and the subsequent adjustment of power relations within these newly defined spaces [41].

Existing research on scalar restructuring includes scale construction in relation to globalization–localization dynamics and metropolitan governance [39,40], as well as the framework of the politics of scale concerning environmental movements and social policies [42,43]. Scalar restructuring captures the interactions and power struggles across multi-level governance structures and social networks, highlights how strategic engagement on scalar attributes is used to legitimize or challenge existing power relations [44]. This study focuses on how actors engage strategically with different scales to gain a strategic advantage within specific contexts [45]. For example, weaker actors may adopt multi-scalar strategies extending the scope of contention [46] or engaging in scale-jumping to align local needs with broader agendas [43]. Therefore, it generates scalar spaces both with vertical (involving the upper and lower political levels) and horizontal (covering socio-spatial relations as well as routines, power dynamics and discourses across different scales) movements [45,46,47]. This is slightly different from multi-level governance, which focuses more on the participation of multiple actors in policymaking and implementation at various political levels [48,49].

The refined concept of scalar restructuring involves changes in boundary size, organizational relationships, and social power within the geographical scale, typically categorized into three dimensions. First, researchers find that public space, as a crucial site for co-production, bridges physical and social dimensions, enhancing urban collaboration, accessibility, and civic engagement [50]. Secondly, scalar restructuring also involves changes in hierarchical and networked relationships within governance structures [51]. Scalar restructuring at the level of governance often entails changes in administrative or organizational levels [52]. Finally, existing research has increasingly highlighted the production, reorganization, or contestation of social spatial organization within geographical scales, emphasizing non-material understandings of scale such as performativity, discourse, and identity [53].

In sum, while prior studies address co-production processes, stakeholders, and social context, or broadly examine the relationship between scales shifts and co-production, they often overlook how specific scalar changes in public space shape these dynamics, and isolate scalar restructuring from its impact on co-production, limiting a fuller insight into evolving power relations. Moreover, the complex relationships among actors in Chinese urban communities still require more in-depth research.

2.3. Constructing a Framework of Community from the Perspective of Scalar Restructuring

This study has constructed a framework to analyze the mechanism through which the scalar restructuring of CPS affects co-production. This part develops a framework for the research (see Figure 1). Co-production in this study refers to specific forms of participation by individuals and collectives, emphasizing the ongoing relationships formed among citizens, communities, governments and regular producers (the producers those who are direct or indirect agents of government serving in a professional capacity [54]) in the provision of public services and public space [32]. Given China’s urban population size, diversity and mobility, traditional centralized and state-led planning struggles to ensure adequate public space provision [12]. Moreover, the coexistence of diverse stakeholders, including citizens, state, market, and civil society, has intensified power imbalances within communities, thereby undermining the sustainability of co-productive practices [36]. Alleviating the imbalance is thus a critical step in shaping co-production in CPS.

Scalar restructuring is an important policy tool for local governments to reconfigure space and redistribute power. As rational actors [55], local governments tend to adopt flexible, cost-effective scalar strategies tailored to specific community conditions and dilemmas. By adjusting scalar strategies for CPS, they actively reshape the relationships among actors. During this process, power is redistributed. Service providers such as the government and professional institutions share power and control with service users [35]. In turn, citizens can better understand planning and make more informed decisions [33], which helps to mitigate imbalances and foster co-production. Therefore, we hypothesize that when faced with varying community conditions and dilemmas, local governments will adaptively restructure the scale of urban CPS to adjust actor power dynamics, thereby influencing co-production.

First, the community background is analyzed. Urban communities in China provide a distinct context for analyzing co-production. Communities are influenced by their conditions and dilemmas.

Community conditions refer to community characteristics that influence co-production outcomes. Social capital is one of the most important community characteristics [56]. Social capital, drawing on Putnam’s classic definition, refers to “features of social organization, such as networks, norms, and trust, that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” [57] (pp. 35–42). It enhances the effectiveness of investments in both physical and human capital. Social capital helps bind communities together, offering access to resources and collaborative opportunities. Generally, denser social ties among similar residents and proximate spatial arrangements further enhance social capital formation [58].

Community dilemmas refer to specific challenges faced in community co-production, such as poor resources, the rise of a fragmented society, and social exclusion [59]. These dilemmas are often difficult to solve, characterized by scientific uncertainty and deep value conflict [60]. In the context of CPS, such dilemmas arise from divergent resident opinions and uneven levels of knowledge and skills. We identify three types of challenges: (1) consensus on needs but uneven resources and skills; (2) divergent views but relatively equal capacity; (3) both disagreement and skill disparities. Dilemmas are unlikely to arise unless both consensus and high collective competence are present.

Then, as previously discussed, scalar restructuring primarily influences co-production through the following three dimensions.

The first analytical dimension is the restructuring of material scale, which refers to adjusting spatial boundaries, functions, and sizes. Well-designed, accessible, and interactive physical spaces promote engagement and collaboration through material accessibility, thereby enhancing co-production [61,62]. However, scholars hold differing perspectives on the appropriate spatial coverage and service population. For example, smaller jurisdiction size can enhance citizen engagement by increasing their sense of agency and focus on local [63], while overly fragmented or narrowly defined spaces which risk being perceived as privatized may reduce inclusivity and generate conflicts [20]. Thus, the restructuring of material scale involves redefining the coverage and user groups.

The second analytical dimension is the restructuring of organizational scale, which involves reforming the governance system of CPS by adjusting actor hierarchies and networks to redistribute resources, authority, and responsibilities. Diverse forms of ownership and management do not necessarily hinder the publicness of public space; instead, they can attract people to gather [64]. Professionals may serve as intermediaries between the government and the public, offering support; however, their involvement may also constrain citizen participation due to multiple motivations, resource dependence, and limited competence [65,66]. Thus, organizational restructuring of CPS may involve upward transfers (to higher levels of government), downward transfers (to residents or self-governance bodies), or outward transfers (to private or nonprofit actors), corresponding to hierarchical, flattened, and polycentric governance models.

The third analytical dimension is the restructuring of discursive scale, which emphasizes how actors utilize scalar expressions by reframing discourse and shifting values to reshape their scope of activity or identity within public space [67]. Local governments promote consensus and local culture narratives, thereby fostering positive perceptions of co-production and enhancing collective action and belonging. The restructuring of discursive scale is also used to expand social influence and attract the attention of higher-level governments through professional or politicized discourses. However, it is undeniable that the “voice” gap among actors may exacerbate disparity in influence, leading to information asymmetry and the dispersion of interests, thereby reduce inclusiveness and fairness in co-production [68]. As a result, actors often construct new discursive scales, through consensus-building, politicized discourse, or appeals to local culture, to frame discourse and negotiate for resources and power.

The restructuring of these three dimensions interacts and collectively shapes community co-production. This study therefore explores how scalar restructuring within CPS affects co-production, aiming to move beyond static or single-scalar perspectives. By selecting appropriate scalar restructuring strategies, local governments can address dilemmas by fostering mechanism that supports the co-production of public space.

3. Research Design and Case Overview

3.1. Research Design

3.1.1. Methods

This study aims to explore how the scalar restructuring adopted by local governments shape co-production with CPS, and how changes across different dimensions contribute to this process. To achieve this purpose, an embedded case study is employed. An embedded case study involves more than one unit of analysis and uses sampling or cluster techniques to identify subunits within a main case, allowing for in-depth analysis of both the main unit and subunits. This method not only facilitates a richer and deeper insight into dynamic processes within a specific setting but also enables the comparison of data across different subunits to identify similarities and differences [69]. It enhances the study’s reliability and validity while avoiding over-abstraction and the loss of crucial contextual information often found in single-level analyses [70] (pp. 47–59). Accordingly, this study adopts an embedded case study approach.

This method is chosen for three reasons: (1) This study is driven by issues stemming from emerging practical phenomena that lack comprehensive theoretical explanation. Its objective is well-suited to a case study design that focused on exploring phenomena and processes, particularly for addressing “how,” “what,” and “why” questions [70] (pp. 5–15). (2) Selecting subunits under a main unit within a shared institutional environment control for external factors, isolating key influences. Given that the included community centers vary across contexts, due to differences in region and resident needs, an embedded case study approach is well suited to accommodate such contextual variation. (3) Embedded case studies begin and end with the main unit, while capturing the complexity of interactive processes. Given the study involves hierarchical authorities and various actors situated at new geographic scales, an embedded approach is appropriate. Following Eisenhardt’s steps for case study research [69], we first developed a detailed research plan, and then selected a main case, followed by subunits of analysis and comparison.

3.1.2. Case Selection

Selection of the Main Unit of Analysis. Following theoretical sampling principles, this study selects a renewal case of CPS in District X of Shanghai namely, “community centers”, as the main unit, based on its typicality and analytical relevance. The rationale for this selection is as follows: (1) Shanghai has established many community centers, with those in District X gaining significant influence. By creating new scales between subdistricts and residential communities, these community centers serve as representative examples of citizen participation in planning. During their construction, resident engagement was emphasized. Moreover, the district has received multiple awards, further underscoring its representativeness. (2) Shanghai is one of the earliest areas to experiment with participatory planning for CPS. Residents participated both in the renovation process and in daily operations. The centers also enjoy high levels of public satisfaction and strong institutional support. (3) By 2024, 40 community centers have been established in District X, which involve distinct features, challenges, and solutions. Comprehensive data availability facilitates robust analysis in this study. Given their maturity, coverage and sustained development trajectory, the community centers of District X in Shanghai were selected as the main case.

Selection of the Subunits of Analysis. The selected subunits should meet the following criteria to consider both the logical replication and the differences among subunits: the scalar restructuring of CPS plays a leading role in reshaping co-production practices; resident participation in co-production significantly increases after the scalar shift; and there are notable differences in conditions for resident participation prior to the restructuring. Based on these criteria [71], three typical community centers that were affected by different scales of restructuring were selected, LS, BY, and XHB, as embedded subunits for comparative analysis. These communities were chosen from the “2024 Community Center Satisfaction Survey” commissioned by District X Civil Affairs Bureau in October 2024, as they exhibited high satisfaction levels but differed in residents’ initial engagement conditions. The survey sought residents’ evaluations of satisfaction with the community centers, focusing mainly on the content provided, service attitude, facility environment and charging standards.

3.1.3. Data Collection and Analysis

This study collected primary data through in-depth interviews and field observations, and obtained secondary data through documents, records, official websites, WeChat official accounts, and other sources. Triangulation of multiple data sources was employed to ensure the credibility and accuracy of the evidence and to enhance the validity of the case study. From March 2019 to November 2024, our research team conducted long-term observation of CPS regeneration in District X of Shanghai, where such regeneration serves as a key arena for community co-production. Through a government consulting project, we directly participated as social governance experts in several rounds of urban governance reform, enabling close collaboration with local authorities, residents, and stakeholders. This facilitated access to key information and minimized data bias, improving the validity of our research.

This study adopts purposive sampling to select well-informed individuals deeply involved in co-production of CPS, who can provide relevant and valuable information, and represent diverse stakeholder perspectives [72]. We conducted 17 in-depth interviews with relevant actors involved in three sample communities—government officials, residential committees (RCs) members, private and nonprofit providers, and residents. Interviewees included 8 public officials (2 civil servants from the district government, 3 civil servants from subdistrict offices, and 3 directors of RCs), 3 professionals from private or the third sector providers (1 private firm manager, 2 representatives from third sector organizations), and 6 residents (2 per community). We randomly selected residents’ sample to ensure diversity from the key members in the co-production [72]. Residents were balanced in gender (2 men, 4 women), age (40–70), employment (3 retired, 3 employed), and education (2 had a bachelor’s degree or above, 1 had a high school diploma, 3 had junior high school education). Officials were asked about project backgrounds, strategies to promote citizen participation, reasons for scalar restructuring, and its outcomes. Professionals from regular providers discussed their roles in the regeneration process, the differences before and after scalar restructuring, and their relationships with the government, residents, and other actors. Residents were asked to evaluate the spatial changes, participation motivations, and share their views on other actors. In addition, we conducted field observations of participants and the regeneration processes. Secondary data came from policy documents, government announcements, WeChat accounts of community and third sector organizations, and state media.

This study employed thematic analysis to analyze all the data, which is identifying, analyzing and reporting themes with data [73]. Three researchers followed Braun and Clarke’s six-step approach [73]: (1) familiarization with the data, (2) generation of initial codes, (3) searching for themes, (4) review of themes, (5) definition and naming of themes, and (6) report producing. Each researcher independently coded all data, and any disagreements were resolved through supplemental data review and repeated discussions until conceptual consensus was reached. Cross-case comparisons were also conducted to ensure analytical rigor. Following evaluation and abstraction, final themes were defined through synthesis. All cases have been anonymized.

3.2. Case Overview

In response to the central government’s directive to establish integrated community service facilities, Shanghai pioneered the “15-Minute Community Life Circle” in 2014. This action aims to rebuild appropriately scaled service facilities and public space, highlighting a governance model shift from spatial governance to one guided by social governance [74]. As key platforms for the action, “Community Centers” play a central role. According to the Shanghai Statistical Yearbook 2024, District X, located in the urban core of Shanghai, covers 54.76 km² with over 1.1 million residents, which faces intense public space demand. Since 2016, it has led in building community centers and promoting co-production. Each subdistrict or township had established about 3 community centers between subdistricts/townships and neighborhoods. Throughout the process, governments actively encouraged residents to participate in the planning and design of the community centers. Forty centers were established across various neighborhoods, earning high public satisfaction and strong institutional support. District X was awarded the “Overall Contribution Award for the 15-Minute Community Life Circle” by municipal planning authorities, and several of its community centers were named among the “Top 100 Public Space”. The following three community centers are among them as typical case.

LS Community Center, established in 2017, is a three-story building with a courtyard in a dense inner-city area. According to data provided by the District X Government in November 2024, the community center serves approximately 17,800 residents across 1.51 km² and eight residential blocks, with aging housing and a population in which 30% are considered as vulnerable groups (including elderly living alone, disabled, low-income families). It launched a resident-led update in 2023, with monthly planning and implement events, daily resident-run activities A core team consisting of 10 members is in place, with over 50 residents in the online group, each event typically draws at least 20 attendees. It was selected as a “Participatory Community Planning” site, achieving high satisfaction.

BY Community Center, established in 2021, consolidated scattered facilities into a two-story space in a commercial plaza, making it one of the largest community centers. Based on data provided by the District X Government in November 2024, BY Community, located on the edge of the city center and surrounded by dense business activity, has 19,800 residents across 1.41 km², featuring a mix of new commercial housing, resettlement housing, and affordable rental units, with weak social ties. The center opened the gate facing the street and adopted co-production with a state-backed social enterprise. In 2023, 23 meetings were held, beyond discussions of center design and conflict resolution, including neighborhood councils. Over 100 resident suggestions in the annual public consultation. It won the “15-Minute Life Circle Demonstration Award” and received high satisfaction.

XHB Community Center, established in 2017 and renovated in 2022, consists of two three-story buildings and serves 18,600 residents across 0.41 km², according to the data from the District X Government in November 2024. XHB Community, a typical residential district in the city center, includes both old housing and fancy gated communities, leading to divergent demands and conflict. Co-production between residents and locally nurtured NGO helped manage tensions. Beyond weekly cultural and entertainment activities, the center holds 1–2 monthly resident-participatory co-creation workshops on accessibility and sustainability, involving 10–20 residents, planners, and officials. The center’s approach earned city-level social innovation awards and received high satisfaction.

4. Community Co-Production Under the Scalar Restructuring of Community Public Space

4.1. Commnity Centers in District X

Since late 2016, the district government has funded and promoted community centers and encouraged residents to participate in the process. While initial outcomes were promising, the effects of residents’ participation have been mixed. After conducting site visits and investigations, the government identified several key issues that hindered co-production: (1) Limited openness—uneven spatial distribution and restricted access due to administrative boundaries; (2) Fragmentation—siloed government departments competed for space, straining limited resources and limiting multi-actor collaboration; (3) Weakened responsiveness—residents lacked agency and planning knowledge, making it difficult for their needs to be incorporated into planning process. This resulted in a mismatch between service provision and public demand. The officials from the district government stated: “At that time, issues such as low utilization rate of public spaces, limited coverage of the population, and scarce resources were all problems reported by the residents” (20240119-X01).

Driven by both municipal policy and resident advocacy, District X has begun restructuring the scale of CPS. Firstly, the material size and coverage of community centers were redefined. The planning authority adjusted the layout based on professional evaluations and local administrative capacity, creating appropriately sized, street-facing, and openly accessible spaces that any resident can use, regardless of household registration or property ownership. Secondly, local governments opened the regeneration process. Leveraging the opportunity of community center upgrades, residents were encouraged to be involved in all stages of regeneration. Measures included the creation of “Councils” (including residents and multi-actors) to supervise major projects, diverse channels for feedback, and regular needs assessments. Professionals from private or the third sector were introduced early in the process. Finally, a new discourse framework was constructed to generate broader attention. Local governments strategically employ various discourses to promote inclusive collaboration.

At the subunit analysis level, the selected cases promoted community co-production, each located in communities with significantly different conditions and dilemmas. This allows for an exploration of how scalar restructuring of CPS, in response to varying local circumstances, shapes community co-production.

Table 1. Typologies of Community Co-production and Subunits of Analysis.

Community Conditions	Community Dilemmas	Scalar Restructuring Process	Community Co-Production Pattern	Subunit of Analysis
Strong social capital and close networks	Shortages of space and resource	After residents proposed self-management, the RC and the sub-district office supported and sought professionals, reduced spatial coverage to everyday needs, and used consensus discourse.	Residents initiate and professional support, residents’ co-product throughout the process. “Bonded Community Co-production”	LS Community Center
Lack of social capital and identity of community	Weak linkages among community and fragmentation	The township government integrated and expanded public space coverage, established a collective social enterprise to assist the participatory planning, and adopted politicized discourses to enhance interaction among residents.	Residents respond and professionals co-manage. Residents co-produce widely but not deeply. “Procedural Community Co-production”	BY Community Center
Uneven social capital and planning knowledge	Divergent residents’ needs and skills and even incur conflicts	The sub-district office enhanced spatial practicality, incubated grassroots nonprofit to guided residents with external professional support, and adopted local culture and politicized discourses expanded influence of public space.	More residents co-produce broadly, a few elites co-produce deeply, and outwards promoted by professionals. “Bridged Community Co-production”	XHB Community Center

presents the basic situation of the three subunits of analysis.

4.2. Bonded Community Co-Production

LS Community Center has been praised for fostering resident participation in managing public space. With strong social capital and close networks, LS residents have built a solid foundation for self-governance. Residents commonly recognize the value of CPS and have shared needs. However, space and resource shortages, along with weak management capacity, limited resident engagement. When the new round of community center renovations began, the subdistrict government planned to close the center in favor of a larger nearby site. Residents opposed the decision and launched a self-organized regeneration of the public space.

The space coverage was narrowed to focus on the daily needs of key groups within the community. After communicating with the RC, with no additional funding and a new center nearby, the residents agreed to carry out a small and gradual update of the old center, giving priority to the needs of the surrounding residents. The minimal renovation focused on key areas like community living room and garden, frequently used by the elderly and children. Residents strengthened bonding social capital and mobilized internal resources, managing daily operations (e.g., opening, closing and cleaning), coordinating activities (e.g., scheduling activities, collecting feedback and volunteering for site supervision), and contributing to space improvements.

Meanwhile, the subdistrict office delegated authority to residents, enabling a flattened governance model where residents led operations and professionals provided support. The core members managed daily maintenance and encouraged broader participation from community residents through monthly renewal activities. When the center garden declined, residents proposed a sustainable vegetable garden. The director of RC connected an undergraduate team, which was recommended by a resident, to support technical assistance for garden. With partial financial support for the materials, residents co-designed, maintained the garden, and formed volunteer teams. More residents witnessed the outcome and joined in further improvements like repairing walls and installing drying poles.

Consensus-building discourse was used to leverage emotional attachment and reinforce the value of public space. On one hand, both the residents and the RC frequently used the collective pronoun “we” to express shared identity and deepen emotional bonds within community. When threatened with closure, some residents expressed their opinion to the municipal government through letters and citizen hotlines to defend the space. Residents sought broader attention and policy response. A resident representative said, “This is our community center. We’re all used to it. It cannot be taken away” (20241011-LS04). On the other hand, the subdistrict office emphasized the symbolic value and exemplary role of the community center to enhance legitimacy, making it a symbol of collective identity. As a flagship case of urban regeneration, the center became a showcase of participation with the “People’s City Construction” initiative and was actively reported by local authorities.

In sum, by contracting boundaries, flattening empowerment, and consensus-building discourse, the LS Community Center was initiated and operated by residents themselves, with professionals providing support. The reduced scale reinforced locally embedded social ties and fostered deep and sustained co-production. Given its strong grassroots participation and resilient community networks, we refer to this pattern as “bonded co-production”.

4.3. Procedural Community Co-Production

BY Community, as a newly formed area with diverse residents, lacked social capital and community identity. Residents often saw the center merely as “a space for children and the elderly” (20220114-X01), showing low interest in public affairs. This led to fragmentation and reduced self-governance capacity. To address this, a local social enterprise, JH, formed by a township-owned enterprise and a commercial community space operator, was tasked with redesigning and ongoing management.

The community center was able to accommodate more residents’ needs, by expanding the spatial boundary and diverting service functions. The new center was relocated centrally to a busy commercial area, with improved accessibility and connected better with its surroundings. It evolved from a scattered site to a comprehensive space serving the whole community, fostering interaction among diverse residents. For example, the children’s area was moved to the first floor to improve accessibility. Sofas were placed nearby to create a welcoming space for all residents, especially the elderly, to rest and interact.

At the organizational scale, the local government established a hierarchical structure in which professionals managed, and residents responded. The social enterprise JH stationed staff in the center to build civic networks, through organizing activities, collecting feedback and submitting reports. Some changes driven by the residents’ feedback were directly reflected in the community center. This encouraged more residents from diverse neighborhoods to participate in public events and the advisory “Council”. However, it seems to have introduced a new managerial layer. When it came to handling the residents’ opinions, the representative stated: “We will include them in the weekly report and pass them on to the government for further action” (20240202-BY04). The excessive administrative tasks, such as hosting government visits and meetings, diverted the attention of its staff, limiting their ability to apply expertise. Reliant on government funding and oversight, JH prioritized bureaucratic procedures over genuine engagement, resulting in passive resident involvement and limited representativeness among residents.

At the discursive scale, the local government made more prominent use of politicized discourse. Directed at residents, the local government mobilized fragmented individuals through professional producers, transforming personal opinions into collective demands and then aligning demands with district-level agendas to gain support, which were reframed in official language to secure additional resources. Meanwhile, several spaces in the BY Community Center were dedicated for promotion, such as display of “participatory planning” initiatives and the implementation of “whole-process people’s democracy” in the community.

In sum, through increasing the scales, including the extension of spatial service boundaries, the establishment of new organizational structures, and the deployment of politicized discourse strategies, BY Community Center effectively coordinated fragmented actors. However, only a portion of residents were meaningfully involved in co-producing CPS. While the local government established a new institutional arrangement enhanced procedural transparency and professional support, some of the residents remained passive, engaging only superficially in consultation rather than decision-making. Surveys reached primarily those already engaged, and social ties within the community were not significantly strengthened. Drawing on the characterization of publicness in CPS [61], this pattern is best understood as a preliminary and limited form of procedural co-production, which we refer to as a “procedural co-production”.

4.4. Bridged Community Co-Production

In XHB Community, emerging social capital was offset by divergent resident needs and uneven planning knowledge, which intensified segregation. The conflicts of space use occurred repeatedly. Moreover, fragmented municipal departments’ resources also complicated spatial adjustments. In response, the local government incubated the grassroots nonprofit organization WLJS, which was initiated by a team of former planners and architects, guided residents through the entire co-production process. Residents actively contributed their time, labor, and resources.

Firstly, the community center prioritized functionality and inclusiveness for broader neighborhoods. The local government removed gates and opened pathways to enhance accessibility and resident connection. Diverse engagement methods were used to involve residents and address varied needs. For example, while some residents opposed a table tennis room which was criticized for noise and disputes, local enthusiasts advocated for its retention during consultations. Under the mediation of the government, the venue was transformed into a multi-functional space jointly managed by the enthusiasts and the nonprofit organization. Rules for usage were set, and it was supervised by the opposing residents and RC.

At the organizational scale, the subdistrict office supported the formation of new nonprofit actors to expand social functions and enable multi-centered governance. The grassroots nonprofit WLJS was highly knowledgeable and focused on sustainable CPS. The subdistrict office granted it considerable autonomy requiring only financial compliance, resident satisfaction and advance declaration of the next themes. WLJS offered planning expertise to shift resident mindsets and improve their capacity, while also mobilizing external partners involved. A community resident shared, “During the accessibility workshop, the expert explained things first, then took us on a walk. We immediately spotted issues. After we gave feedback, changes were made. It felt very rewarding.” (20241203-XHB04). Meanwhile, WLJS facilitated accessibility and inclusive activities. Residents were engaged as organizers and co-leaders who shaped activities and themes. By opening the planning process, residents’ feeling of ownership and resilience of the community was enhanced.

At the discursive scale, local government adopted multiple discourses strategically by leveraging the promotion of local culture and politicized discourse to amplify the impact of co-production. The subdistrict office supported NGOs in promoting neighborhood cultural initiatives and actively assisted in their dissemination. Simultaneously, the subdistrict office leveraged media and reframed professional perspectives with political rhetoric to align with higher-level agendas, e.g., invoking slogans to stress resident-centered planning. They also united diverse actors, linking issues like accessibility to urban sustainability development to enhance the visibility and perceived value of community center, strengthening public recognition and support.

In summary, the scale restructuring of XHB community center was pragmatically oriented and restructured by enhancing spatial practicality, enabling multi-centered professional support, and adopting multiple discourses. Thees measures bridged internal and external actors, mobilized resources and mediated complex conflicts. Supported by professionals and led by a few community elites, more residents broadly engaged in co-production. We term this a “bridged community co-production” pattern, where residents support and professionals facilitate in co-production.

4.5. The Mechanism of Scalar Restructuring Shaping Community Co-Production

Embedded case study requires returning to the main unit of analysis to draw conclusions. As demonstrated above, scalar restructuring plays a crucial role in shaping community co-production. The following mechanisms have been formed.

4.5.1. Different Patterns of Co-Production Through Scalar Restructuring

Based on the above three subunits of analysis, we have derived three scale restructuring strategies: downscaling, upscaling and scalar recompositing. Scalar restructuring reveals dynamic interactions among government, residents, non-state actors, and CPS. As local governments hold authority over spatial allocation, they often direct the course of scalar restructuring and influence across material, organizational, and discursive dimensions. Community conditions based on varying levels of social capital and dilemmas stemming from differentiated residents’ consensus and capacities jointly influence the governments’ selection of scalar restructuring strategies. Meanwhile, residents are not merely passive recipients. They engage in the production of CPS, which can support or challenge restructuring directions. In addition, non-state actors play various roles. They may serve as high-quality support mobilized by government initiatives or, conversely, act as limiting factors. Finally, the outcomes of regenerating CPS vary, thereby emerging different co-production patterns.

In state-led co-production, local governments conduct rational assessments of communities and adopt tailored scalar restructuring strategies (see Figure 2).

Specifically, when a community had strong social capital and unified resident opinions but lacked participation resources (e.g., LS community), downscaling becomes a viable strategy. Local governments enhanced internal ties by narrowing coverage, which encouraged delegation. The compact space was conducive to residents’ interaction and further strengthened community identity and enabled collective action, thereby leading to bonded co-production.

In communities with weak social capital and dispersed structure (e.g., BY community), local governments upscaled by expanding coverage, centralizing resources and authority, and resident participation in regenerating CPS through formal procedures, resulting in procedural co-production. Despite the risk of formalism which might limit professionals’ autonomy and dampen resident enthusiasm, this strategy created engagement opportunities and helped attract higher-level recognition on CPS through enhanced political visibility.

When a community had moderate social capital and diverse residents’ view (e.g., XHB community), local governments adopted scalar recompositing, which integrated internal and external actors into a new balance of power. With the practical functional CPS, residents are encouraged by professionals to participate in various activities, which may respond to varied community needs, resulting in bridged co-production that extended social networks.

4.5.2. The Impact of Scalar Restructuring on Co-Production

The three dimensions of scalar restructuring, material, organizational, and discursive, are interrelated and collectively shape the co-production of CPS (see Figure 2). Firstly, material scalar restructuring directly alters the physical space to enhance accessibility and form a “theater” for interaction, thereby laying the foundation for co-production. It delineates and configures public space, thus providing support for organization and discourse scale. By reconfiguring material space, local governments hope to enhance accessibility and attract more residents to visit, fostering the formation of social capital. In the case study, downsizing CPS optimized spatial coverage to strengthen internal cohesion and bonding social capital; expanding coverage concentrates resources and yielded scale effects, helping to accumulate social capital, though in low-capital contexts, procedural norms risk becoming mere formalities; and functional transformation facilitated the development of bridging social capital by supporting outward connections.

Secondly, organizational scalar restructuring reshapes actor roles by altering incentive structures and coordinating participation, thereby enabling the redistribution of resources. It enhances the utilization of physical space and stimulates the discourse frameworks. Through downward, upward, and outward restructuring of governance networks, the appropriate governance system was expected. As shown in the case, downward shifts might empower residents, thereby encouraging more participation. Upward shifts tried to break the administrative barrier and centralize resource, while facing the risk of bureaucratization. Outward shifts toward the third sector fostered polycentric governance, bridging residents and government to promote communication.

Thirdly, discursive scalar restructuring acts as a translator for structure and action, by building consensus and establishing legitimacy to frame discourse and shift values. It gives meaning to actions and spreads them, thereby rationalizing material and organizational arrangements, and striving for policy and public support. As shown in the case study, the local governments employed multi-scalar discursive strategies to promote co-production. Localized discourse was used to strengthen residents’ emotional attachment and strengthen their sense of identity. Politicized discourse was strategically scaled up to attract attention and obtain resource support from higher-level authorities, reinforcing their legitimacy and sustainability. Discursive promotion created communicative space between residents and professionals to facilitate the integration of local and scientific knowledge.

4.5.3. Power Rebalanced Resulting from Changes in Actors Relationships

In response to diverse community conditions and dilemmas, local governments adaptively implement different scalar restructuring strategies in CPS. As shown above, the interactions among governments, residents, and non-state actors form a reciprocal dynamic that mutually shapes the production of CPS. Through scalar restructuring, the relationships among multiple actors involved in CPS are realigned, providing multifaceted and continuous support for rebalancing power dynamics and enhancing residents’ co-production. Within a state-led governance context, scalar restructuring serves to strengthen the agency of previously marginalized residents. For residents, it enhances agency and motivation by increasing their influence in public space renewal. For non-state actors, scalar restructuring creates collaborative opportunities in spatial renewal allowing them to access resources, fulfill institutional missions, and expand their operational space and advocate for residents. For local governments, it facilitates more efficient resource allocation, mobilizes community assets and reduces administrative barriers to attract attention from higher-level authorities and gain recognition from superiors and residents, encouraging the devolution of varying degrees of power to support co-production. This redistributes the power in regenerating CPS and encouraging broader resident participation in co-production.

The outcomes of CPS co-production also feed back into the behavior between state authority and social participation. When the outcomes generated through co-production improve public space and community welfare, further reinforcing civic motivation and engagement, but not vice versa. This process may influence the government to launch a new round of CPS renewal and enhance the sustainability of co-production practices, thereby establishing a virtuous cycle of co-production driven by scalar restructuring. This forms the mechanism by which scalar restructuring shapes community co-production (see Figure 3).

5. Discussion

This study analyzes an embedded case study of the community centers in Shanghai to examine how scalar restructuring of CPS influences community co-production, while also exploring the mechanisms through which different scales interact. The findings indicate that scalar restructuring, across different dimensions, serves as a deliberate strategy aimed at promoting co-production. Local governments adopt tailored scalar restructuring in response to specific community conditions and dilemmas, reshaping power dynamics among actors and enabling diverse co-production patterns.

5.1. Scalar Restructuring Shapes Community Co-Production

Building on prior research that highlights changes in material [41,50], organizational [52,64], and discursive scales [67,68], this study introduces a critical yet underexplored dimension influencing co-production: scalar restructuring. It argues that rational local government strategically restructures material, organizational, and discursive scales in response to specific community conditions and dilemmas. In other words, scalar restructuring strategies possess dynamic adaptability. Building on this, the study suggests three types of scalar restructuring in CPS, including downscaling, upscaling, and scalar recompositing. Specific scalar restructuring strategies are more effective for co-production when they align with and leverage the communities’ existing social capital, governance foundations, and capacity. By reshaping actor relationships and redistributing power, these strategies help reduce imbalances and activate participation, enabling co-production to achieve optimal outcomes under favorable circumstances. As previously discussed, local governments are expected not only to comply with higher-level policy directives but also to response to residents’ demands [36,55], thus building institutionalized adaptation [75]. In maintaining the requirements of bureaucracy, rational local governments leverage and integrate existing community resources and conditions, restructuring the scale of CPS to address multiple tasks simultaneously. Collectively, these insights offer a more detailed understanding of how to achieve community co-production.

5.2. Scalar Restructuring Produced by Both Government and Society

This study argues that scalar restructuring not only reinforces vertical authority but also redistributes power in other directions to support community co-production. In other words, scalar restructuring is not merely the result of governmental strategy; rather, it is co-produced through the responses and initiatives of society, which is composed of residents and social organizations. Previous studies have emphasized the socially constructed characteristic of scalar restructuring, particularly when marginalized groups and civil society participate are involved, as observed in movements and struggles for spatial justice [7,43,46]. This study adopts a similar perspective that scalar restructuring is not solely the result of single government action but rather the product local interactions among multiple actors. Although scalar restructuring, as an approach to regenerating CPS, exhibits a distinctly government-oriented character [5] (pp. 109–124), this state-led spatial production continuously shapes social factors, which in turn influence spatial production and government policies. Scalar restructuring can be resisted, reinterpreted, or politicized in pursuit of spatial justice by residents and non-state actors. As demonstrated in the cases presented, residents’ protests, initiatives, and negotiations, as well as the professional involvement of social organizations is constantly reshaping and refining scalar strategies.

5.3. Unintended Consequences of Scalar Restructuring

Although scalar restructuring can effectively promote community co-production, it may also generate unintended consequences that exacerbate the negative impacts of co-production [9,10,11]. Given that production of CPS is shaped by government power and society relations, CPS, produced through the involvement of actively participating or government-favored social groups, often caters exclusively to their needs, which in turn widened the gap between different groups.

Existing research suggests that smaller teams can enhance community interaction and ensure the sustainability of co-production [31], a finding corroborated by our study. However, such downscaling may pose risks to equity. Limited representation, varying participant capacity, and rising transaction costs may exclude marginalized groups [10,11] and result in exclusive participating groups. Similarly, scaling up can also complicate decision-making and raise barriers to participation. Generally, the larger the scale, the more stakeholders are involved, and the more complex the decision-making process will be [63], thereby increasing the difficulty of achieving co-production. In the pursuit of quick outcomes, the negative impacts of co-production lead to procedural formalism and marginalizing vulnerable members. In both LS Center and BY Center, some needs of marginalized groups (such as elderly individuals with mobility challenges and people with disabilities) were overlooked, due to limited access to information, capacities or lack of engagement opportunities.

5.4. The Role of the Government and Non-State Actors in Co-Production

The role of government and non-state actors also needs to be further discussed, as scalar restructuring alleviates power imbalance by changing actor relationships. First, our study reinforces the critical role of government in community co-production, which is consistent with prior research [17,20]. However, relying solely on government-led intervention may encounter resistance from dominant forces within communities, making it an unsustainable strategy [12,36,76]. The cases discussed above illustrate that the government remains a central actor in co-production, as even resident-led initiatives encountered challenges without governmental support (e.g., LS Community Center). But excessive government intervention in low social capital contexts (e.g., BY Community Center) made consultative meetings burdensome, undermining participation.

Our case further reveals that non-state actors play an important role in co-production resulting from scalar restructuring. Our findings indicate that the ability of professional social organizations to effectively mediate between the state and residents may depend on their alignment with organizational missions, the degree of administrative capture in their resource allocation, and their professional expertise. The two professional organizations in our cases (a social enterprise and a nonprofit) were both cultivated by local governments and relied heavily on public funding [66,77]. Yet their effectiveness in co-production varied significantly. The social enterprise was partially funded by local government, which led it to prioritize government mandates and face strict resource management. In contrast, the nonprofit organization had clearer community-oriented goals and greater autonomy in allocating resources. Additionally, the staff trained in planning contributed stronger expertise and a comparative advantage in bridging the state and residents. Thus, both government and capable professional actors are vital for sustained and equitable co-production.

6. Conclusions, Policy Implications, and Research Limitations

This study employs thematic analysis on an embedded case study of community center renewal in District X, Shanghai. The findings reveal that local governments restructure material, organizational, and discursive scales of CPS adaptively in response to community conditions and dilemmas, thereby reshaping actor relationships and alleviating power imbalances to facilitate co-production. Furthermore, the study unpacks the way each scale dimension affects co-production and suggests three types of scalar restructuring—downscaling, upscaling, and scalar recomposing—that ultimately reflect different patterns of co-production. The study identifies and summarizes three community co-production patterns: bonded co-production, procedural co-production and bridged co-production.

Based on the research findings, we offer the following insights for community and public space renewal. First, when selecting scalar strategies for community planning, it is essential to consider specific local conditions (such as levels of social capital, consensus among residents, and resident capacity) and adopt adaptable differentiated approaches. Our analysis shows that only by adopting scalar restructuring strategies can effectively promote community co-production, benefiting communities in diverse ways. Generally, in communities with strong social capital and capable residents, downscaling is appropriate: local governments can delegate authority and support resident-led renewal efforts. Conversely, in communities with weak social capital, local authorities should prioritize building social networks, thus enhancing participation. For communities with divided opinions and limited resident capacity, scalar recomposing is more suitable, both to foster consensus and to cultivate residents’ ability to engage meaningfully.

One of the key elements of co-production is the sharing of power between governments and citizens [52]. Our analysis suggests that scalar restructuring in community planning offers new avenues for the sharing of power. To enable meaningful co-production, local governments should shift from micro-management to facilitation and empowerment, focusing on strategic planning, mobilization and guidance, and professional support. Based on systematic planning frameworks, efforts should be made to cultivate social capital and activate resident agency. Moreover, local governments should engage the third sector in community co-production, and even the private sector, and leverage their professional expertise. The crucial point is that in facing challenges such as resident capability gaps or the privatization risks driven by unequal capital access, governments and professionals should provide adequate support to ensure that funded and facilitated projects deliver real value to communities, thus avoiding the “dark sides” of co-production.

Finally, although this study is based on an embedded case from Shanghai, the challenges of urban community renewal and resident participation are shared across many countries. Our findings on the context-specific and adaptive nature of scalar restructuring offer valuable insights for other urban settings. First, scalar restructuring strategies in community planning should be tailored to local conditions, integrating CPS with surrounding areas to enhance accessibility. Second, small-scale interventions that utilize local resources can optimize existing spaces and address the most urgent community needs. Third, it is crucial to strengthen community-driven initiatives by encouraging resident engagement in the planning. Meanwhile, emphasis should be placed on building a diverse governance network to obtain the necessary policy, expertise, and financial support.

However, our research is constrained by the limited number and representativeness of the cases, and the case study in Shanghai may lack generalizability, which prevented us from presenting a comprehensive picture of participation in public space regeneration across diverse governance systems or urban contexts. Another limitation is that the study only captures snapshots of the regeneration of CPS at specific stages of their evolution. Future research could adopt longitudinal or comparative designs to explore the causal relationship between the scalar restructuring of CPS and community co-production under different urban contexts and across governance regimes, thereby enhancing the applicability of the findings. For example, large-sample quantitative studies, process tracing methods, or cross-city comparative analyses, both domestic and international, could be employed to improve the reliability and generalizability of the conclusions.