Finding common ground in urban governance networks: what are its facilitating factors?

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

Table 1. Population and response of the survey.

	Population	Response (absolute)	Response (percentage)
Municipalities (4)	288	117	40.6%
Private organizations (2)	57	24	42.1%
Total	345	141	40.9%

Table 2. Measurement items and constructs’ reliability.

Items and constructs	Factor loading	Corrected item-to-total correlations	Alpha/composite reliability/AVE
Common ground^a			0.70/0.71
(1) In the urban project, the different stakeholders grow closer to each other regarding interests, goals, and understanding versus in the urban project, the different stakeholders do not get closer to each other	0.72	0.53
(2) In the urban project, the public and the private actors grow closer to each other regarding interests, goals, and understanding versus in the urban project, the public and private actors do not get closer to each other	0.59	0.49
(3) In the urban project, the public and the societal/non-profit actors grow closer to each other regarding interests, goals, and understanding versus in the urban project, the public and societal/non-profit actors do not get closer to each other	0.69	0.55	AVE 0.45
Boundary Spanning activity^b			0.84/0.85
(1) In this project, there are many active people who are able to build and maintain sustainable relationships with different organizations in the network	0.70	0.59
(2) In this project, there are many active people who have a feeling of what is important and what matters for other organizations in the network	0.81	0.71
(3) In this project, there are many active people who take care of a good information exchange between the network and their home organization	0.80	0.73
(4) In this project, there are many active people who make effective connections between developments in the network and internal work processes of their home organizations	0.71	0.66
(5) In this project, there are many active people who are able to mobilize their home organization in a timely manner in relation to developments in the network	0.60	0.54	AVE 0.53
Trust between actors in the governance network^b			0.80/0.80
The parties in this project generally live up to the agreements made with one another	0.53	0.49
(1) The parties in this project give one another the benefit of the doubt	0.65	0.60
(2) The parties in this project keep in mind the intentions of the other parties	0.84	0.69
(3) Parties in this project can assume that the intentions of the other parties are good in principle	0.64	0.57	AVE 0.45
(4) Parties in this project feel a good personal connection with one another	0.67	0.61

^a.These items were measured on a 10-point horizontal rating scale.

^b.These items were measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree.

Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and correlations for all model constructs and control variables.

	Mean	SD	Common ground	Consen. orien.	Trust	BSA	Task compl.	Project phase	Years of exper.	Years of involve.
Common ground (1–10)	6.56	1.51	1
Consensus orient. (1–10)	7.33	1.77	0.18*	1
Trust (1–5)	3.34	0.64	0.56**	0.08	1
Boundary spanning acitvity (1–5)	3.37	0.67	0.56**	−0.10	0.55**	1
Task complex. (1–6)	3.16	0.83	0.24**	0.20*	0.18*	0.17*	1
Project phase (1–6)	3.21	1.34	0.19*	−0.08	0.22*	0.21*	0.14	1
Years of experience	13.01	7.23	0.15	0.11	0.01	−0.00	0.11	0.04	1
Years of involvement	2.99	2.12	0.04	−0.02	0.09	0.13	0.19*	0.28**	0.19*	1

**p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.

N is in between 133 and 141 (pairwise deletion of missing values).

Figure 2. Structural model.