Fatores que influenciam a disposição do cidadão para coproduzir: um estudo na perspectiva de cidadãos residentes no Distrito Federal brasileiro

Borges Júnior, José Martins; Farias, Josivania Silva

doi:10.1590/1984-9270955

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Articles • Organ. Soc. 27 (95) • Oct-Dec 2020 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-9270955 copiar

Fatores que influenciam a disposição do cidadão para coproduzir: um estudo na perspectiva de cidadãos residentes no Distrito Federal brasileiro

Autoria SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Resumo

A coprodução surge como tendência na relação entre cidadão e governo, propiciando a participação em atividades públicas. Este estudo verificou fatores que influenciam a disposição do cidadão em coproduzir serviços públicos de segurança, saúde e meio ambiente no Distrito Federal (DF) brasileiro, bem como o perfil e os hábitos desses cidadãos. Foi realizado um survey adaptado dos trabalhos de Löffler et al. (2008)Löffler, E., Parrado, S., Bovaird, T., & Van Ryzin, G. (2008). “If you want to go fast, walk alone. If you want to go far, walk together”: citizens and the co-production of public services. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/39ENuiP
https://bit.ly/39ENuiP... e Alford e Yates (2016)Alford, J., & Yates, S. (2016). Co-production of public services in australia: the roles of government organisations and co-producers. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 75(2), 159-175. doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12157
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12157... , assim como análises a partir de Teste T de Student, Coeficiente de Correlação de Spearman e modelos de regressão linear. Pelas respostas de 360 habitantes do DF, verificou-se que os cidadãos colaboram mais com serviços de saúde, meio ambiente e segurança, nessa ordem, e que no futuro intencionam coproduzir mais do que atualmente. Concluiu-se que quanto mais seguro um cidadão se sente, menor será a disposição à coprodução e quanto mais saudável se considera, maior a disposição para coproduzir. Também se constatou que o tempo dedicado a atividades voluntárias influencia positivamente a disposição para coproduzir nas três áreas. O estudo ilustra o comportamento do cidadão disposto a engajar-se na coprodução de serviços públicos, reunindo informações para futuros pesquisadores do tema e explorando variáveis ainda não consideradas em outros estudos de coprodução brasileiros.

Palavras-chave:
Coprodução; Serviço Público; Cidadão; Disposição para Coproduzir; Governo

Independent variables	Standardized coefficient (β)	Non-standardized coefficient (B)	p
Sense of safety	− .202	− .514	< .001
Satisfaction - safety	.079	.310	.125
Sense of effectiveness	.078	.209	.131
Future volunteering time - Safety	.157	.372	.003
Current volunteering time - safety	.289	1.094	< .001
Dependent variable: Willingness for co-production of safety services
Model adjusted for gender, age, educational background, and family income;
F (9.350) = 9.640; p <. 001; R2 = 19.9%

Independent variables	Standardized coefficient (β)	Non-standardized coefficient (B)	p
Perception about the environment	.026	.058	.635
Satisfaction - environment	− .030	− .093	.565
Sense of effectiveness	.063	.181	.229
Future volunteering time - environment	.224	.491	< .001
Current volunteering time - environment	.192	.450	< .001
Dependent variable: Willingness for the co-production of environmental services
Model adjusted for gender, age, educational background, and family income;
F (9.350) = 9.589; p < .001; R2 = 19.8%

Independent variables	Standardized coefficient (β)	Non-standardized coefficient (B)	p
Health perception	.202	.476	.001
Satisfaction - health	.036	.092	.457
Sense of effectiveness	− .015	− .034	.760
Future volunteering time - health	.108	.225	.028
Current volunteering time - health	.241	.398	.001
Dependent variable: Willingness to co-produce health services
Model adjusted for gender, age, educational background, and family income;
F (9.350) = 16.036; p < .001; R2 = 29.2%

	Minimum	Maximum	Median	Mean	Standard deviation
Sense of safety	1.0	4.0	2.0	2.1	0.8
Perception of the environment	1.0	4.0	3.0	2.9	0.8
Perception of health	1.0	4.0	3.0	3.0	0.8

	Dissatisfied	Somewhat satisfied	Satisfied	Very satisfied
SAFETY
The information you generally receive from the police and other public officials about community crimes and safety.	46.7%	39.7%	12.8%	0.8%
The work performed by the police in the AR where you live.	27.8%	45.3%	26.4%	0.6%
The opportunities offered by the police or other public officials so that people like you can improve public safety in your AR.	62.8%	29.4%	6.9%	0.8%
How often you can work with police or other public officials to improve the public safety of the AR in which you live.	65.0%	26.4%	7.2%	1.4%
How often police and other public officials use their knowledge and experience to improve public safety in your AR.	57.2%	32.5%	9.4%	0.8%
The frequency with which police and other public officials ask your opinion on crime and safety issues in your AR.	80.3%	15.0%	3.3%	1.4%
ENVIRONMENT
The work performed by the public entities and workers responsible for taking care of the environment of the AR where you live.	23.6%	42.8%	31.1%	2.5%
The information you generally receive from local authorities about environmental issues that affect your AR.	53.6%	33.1%	12.2%	1.1%
The frequency with which public officials and other public institutions ask your opinion about environmental issues that affect your AR.	77.5%	17.2%	4.7%	0.6%
HEALTH
The quality of work performed by health professionals, such as the doctors you consult with, and local hospitals.	28.1%	35.8%	30.6%	5.6%
The information you usually receive from healthcare providers, such as the doctors you consult with and local hospitals.	23.3%	38.9%	31.7%	6.1%
How often health care providers, such as your doctor and local hospitals, ask your opinion about issues that affect your health.	52.5%	31.7%	13.1%	2.8%

	Minimum	Maximum	Median	Mean	Standard deviation
Satisfaction - Safety	1.0	4.0	1.5	1.6	0.5
Satisfaction - Environment	1.0	4.0	1.7	1.7	0.5
Satisfaction - Health	1.0	4.0	2.0	2.0	0.7
Satisfaction - Total	1.0	3.2	1.7	1.7	0.4

	No difference	Little difference	Some difference	Large difference
SAFETY
How much of a difference do you believe normal citizens can make to increase the safety of their homes?	2.2%	9.2%	46.7%	41.9%
ENVIRONMENT
How much of a difference do you believe normal citizens can make to increase the quality of their environment?	0.6%	5.6%	15.6%	78.3%
HEALTH
How much of a difference do you think ordinary citizens can play in improving the quality of their health or the health of others?	2.2%	10.8%	27.8%	59.2%

	Minimum	Maximum	Median	Mean	Standard deviation
Attitudes - Safety	1.0	4.0	3.0	3.3	0.7
Attitudes - Environment	1.0	4.0	4.0	3.7	0.6
Attitudes - Health	1.0	4.0	4.0	3.4	0.8
Attitudes - Total	1.0	4.0	3.7	3.5	0.5

	No time	A little time	A few hours per month	A few hours per week or more
SAFETY
How long would you be willing to volunteer in the future to make your living safer by working closely with local police and other citizens?	11.4%	40.0%	39.2%	9.4%
How much time do you currently dedicate to volunteer with your neighbors and local police to help make your locality safer?	81.7%	15.0%	2.8%	0.6%
ENVIRONMENT
How much time would you be willing to volunteer in the future to improve the environment in which you live by working closely with local public officials and other citizens?	7.8%	32.5%	49.7%	10.0%
How much time do you currently volunteer, whether working with your neighbors or local authorities, to improve the environment in which you live?	64.2%	26.9%	6.7%	2.2%
HEALTH
How much time would you be willing to devote in the future to volunteering in partnership with other people or local health workers to help improve your health or the health of others?	13.3%	34.7%	39.2%	12.8%
How much time do you currently spend taking care of your health or the health of others, working in partnership with other people or public health officials?	40.6%	25.8%	17.2%	16.4%

	Minimum	Maximum	Median	Mean	Standard deviation
Volunteered time - Safety
In the future	1.0	4.0	2.0	2.5	0.8
Currently	1.0	4.0	1.0	1.2	0.5
Volunteered time - Environment
In the future	1.0	4.0	3.0	2.6	0.8
Currently	1.0	4.0	1.0	1.5	0.7
Volunteered time - Health
In the future	1.0	4.0	3.0	2.5	0.9
Currently	1.0	4.0	2.0	2.1	1.1
Volunteered time - Total
In the future	1.0	4.0	2.7	2.5	0.7
Currently	1.0	3.3	1.7	1.6	0.6

	Never	Sometimes	Frequently
SAFETY
Ask the police for advice on how to best protect their residence.	85.6%	11.9%	2.5%
Are careful to lock all doors and close all windows of their residence when leaving.	2.5%	13.3%	84.2%
Ask a neighbor to guard their home when they are away.	56.4%	28.9%	14.7%
Watch a neighbor’s property when they are away.	53.3%	32.2%	14.4%
Participate in any group or organization working to improve safety in their AR.	85.6%	10.6%	3.9%
ENVIRONMENT
Warns others not to litter the streets and/or to let their dogs foul the pavement.	27.8%	50.0%	22.2%
Try to recycle their household waste.	16.4%	34.2%	49.4%
Try to save water and electricity in their home.	0.8%	23.6%	75.6%
Walk, ride, or use public transportation.	26.1%	50.3%	23.6%
Participate in any group or organization that works to improve the quality of the environment.	80.8%	14.4%	4.7%
HEALTH
Adopt a healthier diet - for example, reducing alcohol, sugar, or cigarette consumption.	3.9%	31.9%	64.2%
Try to exercise.	5.8%	37.8%	56.4%
Go to the doctor for a check-up and have blood tests.	7.5%	41.7%	50.8%
Take care of a family member or friend who is sick.	23.3%	53.9%	22.8%
Participate in any group or organization that deals with health issues.	75.6%	14.7%	9.7%

	Minimum	Maximum	Median	Mean	Standard deviation
Co-production - Safety	5	15	8	8.4	1.9
Co-production - Environment	6	15	10	10.2	1.7
Co-production - Health	6	15	11	10.9	1.8
Co-production - Total	20	41	29	29.5	3.5

	Willingness to co-Produce
	Safety	Environment	Health	Total
GENDER
Female - mean (DP)	8.4 (1.9)	10.3 (1.7)	11.2 (1.7)	29.9 (3.5)
Male - mean (DP)	8.4 (2.0)	10.1 (1.7)	10.4 (1.8)	28.9 (3.5)
Student T test	p= .942	p= .329	p< .001	p= .009
AGE
Spearman correlation	R = .129	R = .157	R = .225	R = .281
Spearman correlation	(p=.015)	(p=.003)	(p< .001)	(p< .001)
EDUCATIONAL LEVEL
Spearman correlation	R = − .049	R = .020	R = .252	R = .128
Spearman correlation	(p= .355)	(p= .700)	(p< .001)	(p= .015)
FAMILY INCOME
Spearman correlation	R = − 0.068	R = − 0.201	R = 0.228	R = − 0.003
Spearman correlation	(p= .197)	(p<.001)	(p< .001)	(p = .950)

Escola de Administração da Universidade Federal da Bahia Av. Reitor Miguel Calmon, s/n 3o. sala 29, 41110-903 Salvador-BA Brasil, Tel.: (55 71) 3283-7344, Fax.:(55 71) 3283-7667 - Salvador - BA - Brazil
E-mail: revistaoes@ufba.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] About the Authors

José Martins Borges Júnior Master’s degree in marketing at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Account manager of FareHarbor, Amsterdam. E-mail: josemartinsbjr@gmail.com. ORCID: 0000-0001-7006-2109