Who owns collaborative housing? A conceptual typology of property regimes

Overview of the Study

The article “Who Owns Collaborative Housing? A Conceptual Typology of Property Regimes” appears in Housing, Theory and Society, a peer‑reviewed journal published by Taylor & Francis (Informa UK Limited). The research is authored by Daniël Bossuyt, a PhD candidate at the University of Amsterdam’s Department of Geography, Planning and International Development Studies. The paper, published in February 2021, investigates tenure arrangements in collaborative housing across Europe, proposing a typology of property regimes based on bundles of rights.

Research Aim and Context

The study addresses the under‑explored dimension of tenure in collaborative housing, arguing that conventional labels (e.g., “co‑housing”, “co‑operative”) mask diverse internal arrangements. By analysing property regimes—social configurations of rights, rules and roles—the author seeks to differentiate collaborative housing from other residential forms and to assess its potential for sustainability, affordability and inclusivity.

Methodology and Data Sources

Bossuyt combines a literature review, policy analysis and empirical research. The empirical component includes ten semi‑structured interviews conducted between April 2019 and February 2020 with residents, elected officials, policymakers and advisors in the Netherlands. Additional data come from statutory documents, bylaws and a European dataset mapping varied ownership models, ranging from cooperative schemes to hybrid regimes.

Core Findings: Property Regime Typology

Three ideal‑typical property regimes are identified:

1. Self‑Management Regime – Residents share commissioning, management and exclusion rights, while income rights remain with an external actor (e.g., municipality). Example: the Teilingerstraat Residents’ Association in Rotterdam.
2. Common Regime – All rights—including income—are held collectively by residents. Resident‑led housing cooperatives such as De Nieuwe Meent in Amsterdam exemplify this model.
3. Intentional Market Regime – Commissioning, management and exclusion rights are common, but income rights are privately held, allowing free sale or lease. The Wallisblok self‑build project in Rotterdam illustrates this type. These regimes are contrasted with a baseline Planned Market Regime (standard condominiums or market‑cooperatives) where residents possess only possession and income rights, while commissioning and management remain with developers.

Implications for Sustainability and Affordability

The typology reveals that collective control over commissioning and management can lower construction costs and enable design choices aligned with sustainability goals. Restricting income rights—through common or external ownership—helps de‑commodify housing, supporting long‑term affordability. Conversely, regimes that retain private income rights may be more vulnerable to market pressures and speculative resale.

European Scope and Relevance

The dataset maps diverse ownership structures across Europe, highlighting the prevalence of hybrid models that blend private and common elements. The paper underscores that collaborative housing cannot be captured by a single tenure label, emphasizing the need for policy frameworks that recognise varied bundles of rights to promote equitable and sustainable housing outcomes.

Contributions to Housing Theory

By applying a property‑regime lens, the research extends the tenure debate beyond binary owner‑occupier versus renter categories. It integrates insights from commons theory, institutional economics and urban planning, offering a multi‑dimensional perspective useful for scholars, policymakers and practitioners interested in collaborative housing’s role in the transition to sustainable urban development.