<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>01559nam a22001457a 4500</leader>
  <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">525015</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">525015</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <controlfield tag="008">240206b           ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Wang, X.L., Leung, C.Y. and Mui, C.K. </subfield>
    <subfield code="9">48405</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Commoning experiments in a state-corporatist city state: The case of Hong Kong</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Urban Affairs Review  </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">59(6), Nov, 2023: p.1809-1837</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">This study addresses the research question of how the tensions between urban commons and &#x2018;the public&#x2019; might be resolved through boundary spanning. Urban commons offers a new lens for public managers and politicians to rethink ways that urban resources could be governed to enhance public problem-solving and co-create public-value outcomes. Through in-depth case analyses of commoning initiatives at five public markets in Hong Kong, we find that tensions with bureaucratic modes of governance, marketisation of public space, land politics, and little trust in the government were major barriers of commoning. The results also pointed to the unique boundary spanning strategies to facilitate commoning such as using co-creation and political framing to align community interests and public agenda and using legal framing to enable the reallocation of property rights among property owners and community actors. This research also revealed distinct dynamics of boundary spanning in illiberal democratic systems. &#x2013; Reproduced 

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/10780874231162934
</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Urban Affairs Review  </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="906" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">URBAN DEVELOPMENT</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="942" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="0">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">ddc</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="7">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">400061</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2024-02-06</subfield>
    <subfield code="h">59(6), Nov, 2023: p.1809-1837</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">AR130847</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">2024-02-06</subfield>
    <subfield code="y">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
