IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0229095.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Participatory urban governance: Multilevel study

Author

Listed:
  • Piotr Zientara
  • Anna Zamojska
  • Giuseppe T Cirella

Abstract

Constraints and stakeholder theories are used as a theoretical framework to explore civic engagement and participatory practices in cities. Based on data gathered in Gdansk, Poland, hierarchical level modelling examines the socio-psychological mechanism that underlies an individual stakeholder’s intention to participate in the operation of a facility run by a municipality-owned company. It conceptualizes this interaction as location-dependent and nested. Results indicate that stakeholder attitude to the facility and their perception of influence were—unlike their perception of voice—positively related to their intention to participate in its functioning while location proved to be negatively related.

Suggested Citation

  • Piotr Zientara & Anna Zamojska & Giuseppe T Cirella, 2020. "Participatory urban governance: Multilevel study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-23, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0229095
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229095
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0229095
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0229095&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0229095?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andreas Hartmann & Marieke Hietbrink, 2013. "An exploratory study on the relationship between stakeholder expectations, experiences and satisfaction in road maintenance," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(4), pages 345-358, April.
    2. Stefan Olander, 2007. "Stakeholder impact analysis in construction project management," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 277-287.
    3. Justin Beaumont & Maarten Loopmans, 2008. "Towards Radicalized Communicative Rationality: Resident Involvement and Urban Democracy in Rotterdam and Antwerp," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 95-113, March.
    4. Piotr Zientara, 2011. "When Environmental Protection Collides with Economic Development," Eastern European Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(2), pages 64-81, March.
    5. Franz W. Kellermanns & Kimberly A. Eddleston & Thomas M. Zellweger, 2012. "Article Commentary: Extending the Socioemotional Wealth Perspective: A Look at the Dark Side," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 36(6), pages 1175-1182, November.
    6. Joshua Cohen & Joel Rogers, 1992. "Secondary Associations and Democratic Governance," Politics & Society, , vol. 20(4), pages 393-472, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Agata Klaus-Rosińska & Joanna Iwko, 2021. "Stakeholder Management—One of the Clues of Sustainable Project Management—As an Underestimated Factor of Project Success in Small Construction Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-27, September.
    2. Piotr Zientara, 2009. "A Few Critical Remarks On Globalisation, Democracy And Spatiality," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 56-61, June.
    3. Ahsan Nawaz & Xing Su & Qaiser Mohi Ud Din & Muhammad Irslan Khalid & Muhammad Bilal & Syyed Adnan Raheel Shah, 2020. "Identification of the H&S (Health and Safety Factors) Involved in Infrastructure Projects in Developing Countries-A Sequential Mixed Method Approach of OLMT-Project," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-18, January.
    4. Georgina Blakeley, 2010. "Governing Ourselves: Citizen Participation and Governance in Barcelona and Manchester," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 130-145, March.
    5. Nikola Rosecká & Ondřej Machek, 2023. "How Relational Conflict Harms Family Firm Performance: The Mediating Role of Family Social Capital and the Moderating Role of Family Ownership," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 854-869, December.
    6. Vincenzo Scafarto & Federica Ricci & Elisabetta Magnaghi & Salvatore Ferri, 2021. "Board structure and intellectual capital efficiency: does the family firm status matter?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 25(3), pages 841-878, September.
    7. Francesco Aiello & Paola Cardamone & Lidia Mannarino & Valeria Pupo, 2021. "Green patenting and corporate social responsibility: Does family involvement in business matter?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 1386-1396, July.
    8. HaeRan Shin & Quentin Stevens, 2013. "How Culture and Economy Meet in South Korea: The Politics of Cultural Economy in Culture-led Urban Regeneration," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(5), pages 1707-1723, September.
    9. Ullah, Nazim & Showrav, Ifthakarul & Eram, Mubarrat, 2023. "Effects of Project Failure Towards Stakeholders: A Review of Literature," MPRA Paper 118721, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Davila, Jessenia & Duran, Patricio & Gómez-Mejía, Luis & Sanchez-Bueno, Maria J., 2023. "Socioemotional wealth and family firm performance: A meta-analytic integration," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 14(2).
    11. Eunice Kabahinda & Rogers Mwesigwa, 2023. "Trust Mediates the Relationship Between Stakeholder Behavior and Stakeholder Management of Public Private Partnership Projects in Uganda," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 245-263, March.
    12. Melanie Richards, 2023. "When do Non-financial Goals Benefit Stakeholders? Theorizing on Care and Power in Family Firms," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(2), pages 333-351, May.
    13. Mariarosaria Agostino & Sabrina Ruberto, 2024. "Credit rationing and SMEs’ environmental performance in transition and developing countries," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(7), pages 16627-16656, July.
    14. Lorenzo Dal Maso & Rodrigo Basco & Thomas Bassetti & Nicola Lattanzi, 2020. "Family ownership and environmental performance: The mediation effect of human resource practices," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 1548-1562, March.
    15. Matthew Amengual & Janice Fine, 2017. "Co‐enforcing Labor standards: the unique contributions of state and worker organizations in Argentina and the United States," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 129-142, June.
    16. Cristina Cruz & Martin Larraza–Kintana & Lucía Garcés–Galdeano & Pascual Berrone, 2014. "Are Family Firms Really More Socially Responsible?," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 38(6), pages 1295-1316, November.
    17. Vivien Schmidt, 2010. "Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited - Input, Output and Throughput," KFG Working Papers p0021, Free University Berlin.
    18. Culpepper, Pepper D., 2001. "Employers, Public Policy, and the Politics of Decentralized Cooperation in Germany and France," Working Paper Series rwp01-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    19. Andrea Stübner & Svenja Jarchow, 2023. "Family oblige: the link between CSR and succession intention in small and medium family firms," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(3), pages 389-431, April.
    20. Brown, Judy & Dillard, Jesse, 2013. "Critical accounting and communicative action: On the limits of consensual deliberation," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 176-190.

    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:plo:pone00:0229095. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.