Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026)
Articles

The Effects of Multiple Dimensions of Urban Collaborative Management on Community Sustainability: Evidence from a Questionnaire-Based Regression Analysis

PDF
  • Zhaoyu Zheng,
  • Chenlu Yu ,
  • Tianrui Zhang,
  • Wei Yet Tan
Zhaoyu Zheng
SEGi University
Chenlu Yu
SEGi University
Tianrui Zhang
SEGi University
Wei Yet Tan
SEGi University
DOI: https://doi.org/10.70693/smr.v1i1.9

Published 2026-02-08

Keywords

  • Urban collaborative management,
  • Community sustainability,
  • Collaborative governance,
  • Community self-management,
  • Cross-sector collaboration

How to Cite

Zheng, Z., Yu , C., Zhang, T., & Tan, W. Y. (2026). The Effects of Multiple Dimensions of Urban Collaborative Management on Community Sustainability: Evidence from a Questionnaire-Based Regression Analysis. Sustainable Management Review, 1(1), 7–10. https://doi.org/10.70693/smr.v1i1.9

Copyright (c) 2026 Zhaoyu Zheng, Chenlu Yu , Tianrui Zhang, Wei Yet Tan

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

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.

PDF

References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
  5. 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
  6. Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Collaborative governance regimes. Georgetown University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/book44406
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  15. 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
  16. Pierre, J. (2019). Multilevel governance as a strategy to build capacity in cities. Regional Studies, 53(6), 880–890.
  17. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/358916.361990
  18. 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