IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rpxmxx/v23y2021i11p1683-1704.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A qualitative comparative analysis of collaborative governance structures as applied in urban gardens

Author

Listed:
  • Astrid Molenveld
  • William Voorberg
  • Arwin Van Buuren
  • Liselotte Hagen

Abstract

Many public issues require collaboration between governments, private actors, NGOs, civic organizations, and individual organizations. Initiating such a collaboration is challenging, but sustaining such a partnership can be even more difficult. This paper aims to explore what types of collaborative governance structures (CGSs) are found in urban gardens that have continued to exist over the years and that have been discontinued. In order to do this, we analysed 14 urban gardens in the Netherlands as striking examples of CGSs. By applying Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (FsQCA), we were able to unravel plausible explanations for gardens that (did not) stand the test of time. The analysis shows that financial independence, strong institutionalization, and having a small core group of volunteers is the most important configuration for the durability of an urban garden. Even though some gardens were meant to be temporary, this structure made them durable. Two urban gardens – envisioned to be temporal – did not develop an institutional design or financial independence, which led to their discontinuation.

Suggested Citation

  • Astrid Molenveld & William Voorberg & Arwin Van Buuren & Liselotte Hagen, 2021. "A qualitative comparative analysis of collaborative governance structures as applied in urban gardens," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(11), pages 1683-1704, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rpxmxx:v:23:y:2021:i:11:p:1683-1704
    DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2021.1879912
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14719037.2021.1879912
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/14719037.2021.1879912?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rpxmxx:v:23:y:2021:i:11:p:1683-1704. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rpxm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.