The Effects of Multiple Dimensions of Urban Collaborative Management on Community Sustainability: Evidence from a Questionnaire-Based Regression Analysis
Authors
Files
Key Information
Journal
Published in Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026) of Sustainable Management Review.
Sustainable Management Review (SMR) is a multidisciplinary, peer-reviewed international journal dedicated to advancing research on sustainable management and sustainable development across disciplines. SMR welcomes sustainability-oriented studies from diverse academic fields, including but not limited to economics and management, public administration, culture, education, sociology, communication, law, environmental studies, biology, chemistry, materials science, engineering, water resources management, and other STEM-related areas. The journal encourages scholars to examine the application, transformation, and development of sustainability principles from organizational, social, technological, ecological, and institutional perspectives, thereby providing theoretical support and practical insights for more responsible, resilient, and future-oriented models of management and development.
ISSN3106-5805 eISSN3106-5813
About the JournalAbstract
This study examines how multiple dimensions of urban collaborative management influence community sustainability, with a focus on government coordination, community self-management, enterprise participation, and cross-sector collaboration. A quantitative, cross-sectional survey was conducted among urban community residents. Data from 300 valid responses were analyzed using multiple linear regression to assess the effects of collaborative management dimensions on community sustainability. The results indicate that government coordination capacity and cross-sector collaboration have strong positive effects on community sustainability. Community self-management also shows a significant positive association, while enterprise participation exhibits a weaker but still significant effect. This study contributes to collaborative governance and urban sustainability literature by providing quantitative evidence on the relative importance of different management dimensions at the community level. The findings suggest that policymakers should strengthen coordination mechanisms and cross-sector collaboration while empowering communities as active governance partners to enhance sustainable community development. By adopting a multidimensional and empirical approach, this study advances understanding of how collaborative urban management practices jointly shape sustainability outcomes at the community level.
References
Albrechts, L. (2017). Strategic planning as a catalyst for transformative practices. Planning Theory, 16(3), 299–312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33024-2_1
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647–663. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12432
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development, 19(5), 289–300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.417
Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Collaborative governance regimes. Georgetown University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/book44406
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Fung, A. (2015). Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 513–522. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12361
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.
Hodge, G. A., & Greve, C. (2017). On public–private partnership performance: A contemporary review. Public Works Management & Policy, 22(1), 55–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X16657830
Koppenjan, J., & Enserink, B. (2009). Public–private partnerships in urban infrastructures: Reconciling private sector participation and sustainability. Public Administration Review, 69(2), 284–296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.01974.x
Mees, H. L. P., Driessen, P. P. J., & Runhaar, H. A. C. (2019). Exploring the scope of public and private responsibilities for climate adaptation. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 21(4), 389–403.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641–672. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.3.641
Pierre, J. (2019). Multilevel governance as a strategy to build capacity in cities. Regional Studies, 53(6), 880–890.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/358916.361990
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2021). Radical and disruptive answers to downstream problems: Collaborative innovation in governance. Public Management Review, 23(11), 1591–1612. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1879914
Details
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Zhaoyu Zheng, Chenlu Yu , Tianrui Zhang, Wei Yet Tan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
