From Digital Tools to Governance Infrastructure: How Platforms Enable Co-created Carbon Neutrality in Mega-Events

Abstract

This study examines how digital platforms reshape the co-creation of carbon neutrality in mega-event governance. Building on co-production and platform governance theories, it conceptualizes platforms as governance infrastructure that reconfigures stakeholder relations and enables multi-actor climate action. Based on the 2023 Hangzhou Asian Games, it identifies two mechanisms: direct emissions reduction through digital substitution of high-carbon activities, and collaborative reduction through platform-mediated coordination. The findings show that platforms transform fragmented actions into collectively generated public value, advancing platform-mediated climate governance and offering insights for urban responses to complex collective action challenges.

Keywords

co-creation carbon neutrality digital platform mega-event climate change governance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alford

Freijser

(2018). Public management and co-production. In Co-production and co-creation (pp. 40–48). Routledge.

Alford

Yates

(2016). Co-production of public services in Australia: The roles of government organizations and co-producers. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 75(2), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12157

Alonso

J. M.

Andrews

Clifton

Diaz-Fuentes

(2019). Factors influencing citizens’ co-production of environmental outcomes: A multi-level analysis. Public Management Review, 21(11), 1620–1645. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1619806

Ansell

Gash

(2017). Collaborative platforms as a governance strategy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(1), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux030

Ansell

Sørensen

Torfing

(2022). Co-creation for sustainability: The UN SDGs and the power of local partnership. Emerald Publishing Limited.

Ansell

Sørensen

Torfing

(2023). The democratic quality of co-creation: A theoretical exploration. Public Policy and Administration, 39(2), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767231170715

Ball

Mason

Grubnic

Hughes

(2009). The carbon neutral public sector: Early developments and an urgent agenda for research. Public Management Review, 11(5), 575–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030902798263

Balogun

A. L.

Marks

Sharma

Shekhar

Balmes

Maheng

Arshad

Salehi

(2020). Assessing the potentials of digitalization as a tool for climate change adaptation and sustainable development in urban centers. Sustainable Cities and Society, 53, 101888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101888

Bovaird

(2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x

10.

Brandsen

Honingh

(2018). Definitions of co-production and co-creation. In Brandsen

Steen

Verschuere

(Eds.), Co-production and co-creation. Engaging citizens in public services (pp. 9–17). Routledge.

11.

Brudney

J. L.

England

R. E.

(1983). Toward a definition of the coproduction concept. Public Administration Review, 43(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.2307/975300

12.

Carlsen

H. B.

Toubøl

Brincker

(2021). On solidarity and volunteering during the COVID-19 crisis in Denmark: the impact of social networks and social media groups on the distribution of support. European Societies, 23(S1), S122–S140.

13.

China Central Government. (2021). Opinions on the complete, accurate and comprehensive implementation of the new development concept and on carbon peaking and carbon neutrality. Retrieved October 14, 2024, from https://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2021/content_5649728.htm

14.

Clark

B. Y.

Brudney

J. L.

Jang

(2013). Coproduction of government services and the new information technology: Investigating the distributional biases. Public Administration Review, 73(5), 687–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12092

15.

Gillett

A. G.

Tennent

K. D.

(2022). Hybrid goals: Institutional complexity and ‘legacy’in a global sporting mega-event. Public Management Review, 24(3), 372–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1833609

16.

Hangzhou Asian Games Organizing Committee. (2023). “Hangzhou Green Asian games ”Everyone Saves 1 kg of Carbon, Help Asian Games Carbon Neutral“ activity set a Guinness World Record.” Retrieved November 11, 2024, from https://www.hangzhou2022.cn/xwzx/jdxw/ttxw/202309/t20230926_72654.shtml

17.

Hangzhou Municipal Ecology and Environment Bureau. (2023). Contribute carbon 60,500 tons, equivalent to about 2474 acres of adult forests, to help Hangzhou Asian Games to achieve carbon neutrality. Retrieved November 5, 2024, from https://epb.hangzhou.gov.cn/art/2023/10/10/art_1692259_59027698.html

18.

Hangzhou Municipal Forestry and Water Resources Bureau. (2023). One of the ten actions: Asian games carbon neutral forest construction action. Retrieved September 20, 2024, from https://ls.hangzhou.gov.cn/art/2023/8/21/art_1596533_59023842.html

19.

Hangzhou Municipal Government. (2021). Delivering a good event to maintain the heat of urban influence; enhancing a city to improve the temperature of people’s well-being. Retrieved October 6, 2024, from https://www.hangzhou.gov.cn/art/2021/12/27/art_812270_59046862.html

20.

Hangzhou Municipal Government. (2023a). Hangzhou is taking actions to create the first carbon neutral Asian Games. Retrieved November 14, 2024, from https://www.hangzhou.gov.cn/art/2023/8/25/art_812262_59086631.html

21.

Hangzhou Municipal Government. (2023b). The Asian Games in Hangzhou successfully achieved carbon neutrality. Retrieved November 18, 2024, from https://www.hangzhou.gov.cn/art/2023/12/7/art_812270_59090561.html

22.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2023). Climate change 2023: Synthesis report. International Panel on Climate Change.

23.

Lange

Pohl

Santarius

(2020). Digitalization and energy consumption. Does ICT reduce energy demand? Ecological Economics, 176, Article 106760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106760

24.

Leino

Puumala

(2020). What can co-creation do for the citizens? Applying co-creation for the promotion of participation in cities. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 39(4), 781–799. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654420957337

25.

Lember

Brandsen

Tõnurist

(2019). The potential impacts of digital technologies on co-production and co-creation. Public Management Review, 21(11), 1665–1686. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1619807

26.

Levine

C. H.

Fisher

(1984). Citizenship and service delivery: The promise of coproduction. Public Administration Review, 44, 178. https://doi.org/10.2307/975559

27.

(2020). Communication for coproduction: Increasing information credibility to fight the coronavirus. The American Review of Public Administration, 50(6–7), 692–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020942104

28.

Mallapaty

(2022). China’s winter olympics are carbon-neutral—how? Nature, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00321-1

29.

Mayring

(2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Klagenfurt, Austria, SSOAR.

30.

McMullin

(2025). “We’re not there to lead”: Professional roles and responsibilities in “citizen-led” co-production. Public Administration Review, 85(1), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13770

31.

Meijer

A. J.

(2011). Networked coproduction of public services in virtual communities: From a government-centric to a community approach to public service support. Public Administration Review, 71(4), 598–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02391.x

32.

Müller

Wolfe

S. D.

Gaffney

Gogishvili

Hug

Leick

(2021). An evaluation of the sustainability of the Olympic Games. Nature Sustainability, 4(4), 340–348. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00696-5

33.

Nabatchi

Sancino

Sicilia

(2017). Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of coproduction. Public Administration Review, 77(5), 766–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12765

34.

Orr

Inoue

(2019). Sport versus climate: Introducing the climate vulnerability of sport organizations framework. Sport Management Review, 22(4), 452–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.09.007

35.

Osborne

S. P.

Radnor

Strokosch

(2016). Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment? Public Management Review, 18(5), 639–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1111927

36.

Ostrom

(1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073–1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750x(96)00023-x

37.

Ostrom

(1977). Public goods and public choices. In Savas

E. S.

(Ed.), Alternatives for delivering public services: Toward improved performance. Westview Press.

38.

Perikangas

Tuurnas

(2023). Design for inclusive digital co-production. Public Management Review, 26(6), 1731–1751. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2224819

39.

Ross

W. J.

Leopkey

(2017). The adoption and evolution of environmental practices in the Olympic Games. Managing Sport and Leisure, 22(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/23750472.2017.1326291

40.

Royal Society. (2020). Digital technology and the planet: Harnessing computing to achieve net zero. https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/digital-technology-and-the-planet/digital-technology-and-the-planet-report.pdf

41.

Sahamies

Haveri

Anttiroiko

A.-V.

(2022). Local governance platforms: Roles and relations of city governments, citizens, and businesses. Administration & Society, 54(9), 1710–1735. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211072531

42.

Sakurai

Chughtai

(2020). Resilience against crises: COVID-19 and lessons from natural disasters. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(5), 585–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085x.2020.1814171

43.

Scott

Hall

C. M.

Gössling

(2019). Global tourism vulnerability to climate change. Annals of Tourism Research, 77, 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.05.007

44.

Scott

Knowles

N. L. B.

Rutty

Steiger

(2022). Climate change and the future of the Olympic winter games: Athlete and coach perspectives. Current Issues in Tourism, 26(3), 480–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.2023480

45.

Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek

Zyzak

(2025). Digital technologies in public administration networks: Systematic literature review and research avenues. Administration & Society, 57(8–9), 1051–1087. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997251369090

46.

Stake

(1995). Case researcher roles, the art of case study research. Sage Publications.

47.

Steen

Brandsen

Verschuere

(2018). The dark side of co-creation and co-production: Seven evils. In Co-production and co-creation (pp. 284–293). Routledge.

48.

Talwar

Dhir

Luqman

Gupta

Gugnani

(2023). Charting the path toward a greener world: A review of facilitating and inhibiting factors for carbon neutrality. Journal of Cleaner Production, 423, Article 138423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138423

49.

Voorberg

W. H.

Bekkers

V. J. J. M.

Tummers

L. G.

(2014). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505

50.

Williams

B. N.

Kang

S.-C.

Johnson

(2015). (Co)-contamination as the dark side of co-production: Public value failures in co-production processes. Public Management Review, 18(5), 692–717. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1111660

51.

Yin

R. K.

(2018). Case study research and applications (Vol. 6). Sage.

52.

Zhang

Kong

(2022). From low carbon to carbon neutrality: A bibliometric analysis of the status, evolution and development trend. Journal of Environmental Management, 322, Article 116087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116087

53.

Zou

(2022). Leveraging digital infrastructure for pandemic governance: Preparation, praxis, and paradox. Public Performance & Management Review, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2022.2130946

54.

Zou

(2023). Urban resilience, digital technologies, and the economic recovery of a city from the pandemic. Public Administration Review, 84(4), 637–650. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13678

55.

Zou

Zhao

(2021). Neighbourhood governance during the COVID-19 lockdown in Hangzhou: coproduction based on digital technologies. Public Management Review, 24(12), 1914–1932. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1945666