The Governance of Wellbeing-Producing Shared Spaces in the Housing Cooperative Saarlandstrasse in Hamburg, Germany

The Gallup Global Emotions Index recorded its highest-ever levels of negative emotions such as stress, sadness, anger, and physical pain in 2022, continuing an upward trend observed for more than a decade [1-3]. In parallel, global temperatures are projected to keep rising, significantly reducing nature’s capacity to contribute to human wellbeing [4]. These developments highlight the urgency of transitioning toward sustainable cities and societies that place stronger value on human social, emotional and physical needs beyond economic indicators.

The immediate living environment plays a central role in shaping personal quality of life [5, 6]. Research on residential environments that prioritize individual wellbeing has often focused on alternative housing niches such as cohousing, ecovillages, intentional communities, and housing cooperatives. Among these models, housing cooperatives are particularly relevant because they combine collective forms of organization with broader institutional integration into national housing systems. In Germany, approximately 2,000 housing cooperatives provided around 2.2 million dwellings in 2026, representing roughly 5% of the national housing stock [7].

Recent literature highlights the potential of housing cooperatives to address health and wellbeing challenges through mechanisms such as affordability, collective decision-making, and social cohesion, which can reduce financial stress while strengthening security, autonomy, empowerment, and social inclusion [8]. Complementing these findings, Reyes et al. [9] identified additional mechanisms linking cooperative housing to wellbeing, including tenure arrangements, inter-cooperative networks, building design, construction materials, and shared spaces. These mechanisms contribute to the formation of local networks, senses of belonging, comfort, and opportunities for social interaction. Shared facilities such as common rooms, bicycle parking areas, and guest apartments have been associated with social interaction, collaboration, and mutual support, as well as with the formation of social capital and social norms [9-12].

While shared spaces are often celebrated for their wellbeing benefits, considerably less attention has been paid to the governance arrangements that sustain these benefits over time. Shared spaces are not self-sustaining. Gardens require maintenance, common rooms need coordination, and collectively used facilities depend on continuous resident participation. In this sense, shared spaces can be understood as commons-like resources whose use depends on what Stavrides [13] described as the “politics of sharing” in contrast to logics of individual ownership.

The need for effort and organization to maintain shared facilities in collective housing is widely recognized. However, cooperation is often treated either as an expected feature of shared lifestyles, sustained through residents’ commitment and the “emotional labour” involved in everyday coordination [11], or as an implicit outcome of existing institutional arrangements. As a result, cooperation tends to be framed in normative or practical terms rather than as a process requiring specific mechanisms of stabilization. In the absence of broader organizational frameworks that structure key dimensions such as the division of labour, collective initiatives risk remaining “idealised experiments” [14]. Similarly, the limited analytical attention given to the maintenance of shared spaces in housing cooperatives suggests that cooperation is frequently assumed rather than examined. This raises a central question: how can cooperation around shared spaces be stabilized over time?

This paper conceptualizes shared spaces as commons-like resources whose capacity to support sustainable wellbeing depends on institutional arrangements capable of stabilizing cooperation over time. If residents disengage, shared spaces may deteriorate, undermining the wellbeing practices they support.

Drawing on Common Pool Resource (CPR) theory [15-17], this paper examines the conditions that facilitate sustainable wellbeing in the German housing cooperative WEG Autofreie Wohnsiedlung (WEG 19) in Hamburg. In line with the literature on social transitions, sustainable wellbeing is understood here as the set of practices that positively influence the social, emotional, and physical states of individuals, such as relaxing, engaging with nature, or gathering with others [18-21].

CPR theory argues that individuals can successfully self-organize around shared resources when appropriate governance arrangements are in place, including clearly defined boundaries, collective and adaptive rule-making, monitoring systems, conflict-resolution arenas, and institutional recognition. The central assumption of this paper is that the cooperative statute and governance practices of WEG 19 help operationalize these CPR principles, thereby stabilizing cooperation around shared spaces over time. The paper therefore examines whether and how these governance arrangements contribute to the long-term reproduction of sustainable wellbeing practices.

The paper examines this argument through a mixed-methods case study of Saarlandstrasse, Hamburg’s first car-free housing settlement, where the housing cooperative WEG 19 is located [22]. The project offers the opportunity to observe everyday wellbeing practices linked to shared spaces and collective organization over a period of more than 25 years, making it a suitable case for examining how institutionalized cooperation may contribute to long-term wellbeing outcomes. The empirical material includes a household survey, interviews, and field material collected between 2020 and 2024. Using a deductive framework analysis based on Ostrom’s CPR principles, the paper examines how governance arrangements support cooperation around shared spaces and how these spaces relate to sustainable wellbeing practices.

This study makes three contributions. First, it contributes to research on cooperative and collaborative housing by showing how specific shared spaces support different forms of sustainable wellbeing in everyday residential life. By linking particular wellbeing practices to specific shared spaces, the paper provides insights into how residential environments can align spatial configurations with targeted wellbeing outcomes. Second, it identifies the forms of cooperation required for the maintenance and everyday functioning of these spaces, helping to clarify the organizational demands involved in sustaining shared wellbeing over time. Third, it contributes to CPR theory by providing empirical evidence of how cooperative governance arrangements may help stabilize cooperation around collectively managed spaces. In doing so, the paper develops a relational understanding of shared spaces as both outcomes and drivers of cooperation: they are produced and maintained through collective action, while the wellbeing experiences they enable may also reinforce residents’ motivation to continue cooperating over time.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. The next section presents the main assumptions of CPR theory. This is followed by the methodology and analysis strategy. The paper concludes by discussing the main findings and their implications.

The research design consists of three parts. First, it identifies the forms of wellbeing produced and the spaces in which they occur. Second, it examines the forms of cooperation that sustain these practices. Third, it analyses the cooperative statute and its correspondence with the core assumptions of CPR theory. This section begins with an introduction to the urban quarter in which the housing cooperative is located, followed by a description of the data collection process and analytical strategy.

3.1 The setting

The Saarlandstraße quarter is located approximately 4 km north of Hamburg’s city centre, close to Hamburg Stadtpark, a historically significant landscaped area. The site has a rectangular layout structured around a central boulevard that serves as the main access point and is bordered by a canal to the east and south. On the east side of the boulevard lies the Autofreies Wohnprojekt Saarlandstraße e.V. [Car-free housing project Saarlandstrasse], originally planned to include 230 apartments distributed across three large building blocks arranged along the boulevard. Each block consists of a four- to five-story L-shaped housing building and a smaller square building, which encloses the space and creates a central courtyard that enhances privacy (for a comprehensive overview of Saarlandstraße’s car-free housing project, see [22]). The case studied is located in the southern part of the site and comprises 49 apartments, occupied since 2000.

The dwellings are managed by a housing cooperative (Mietergenossenschaft Wohnwarft eG, 31 apartments) and a group of apartment owners (Wohnungs-eigentümergemeinschaft Barmbeker Stich, 18 apartments). Together, these entities initiated the car-free project and operated throughout all project stages as a single, fully self-administered cooperative under the name WEG 19.

3.2 Data collection and analytical strategy

To support the assessment of the efficacy of the German cooperative statute in fostering sustainable wellbeing, we adopted a mixed-methods approach, which allows for the convergence and corroboration of findings and supports the development of an integrated understanding of the phenomenon based on several perspectives [25, 26]. Survey, interview, observational, and visual materials, including photographs and video recordings, were collected in situ between June 2020 and November 2024.

Two initial semi-structured interviews, lasting approximately 1.5 hours each, focused on the origins of the car-free settlement and its internal organization. The interviews were conducted in English and German with three cooperative members selected for their experience as initiators and as members of the community board at different stages. These key informants remained involved throughout the research process, contributing to the clarification of emerging gaps and the validation of findings.

The survey consisted of 61 questions distributed across three sections. Section one (wellbeing) explored participation in sustainable wellbeing-related activities and the spaces where they take place. Three forms of wellbeing were included: social wellbeing assessed social interaction, emotional wellbeing was appraised in terms of opportunities for relaxation, and physical wellbeing examined health through the extent of sports activities. Section two (cooperation) surveyed involvement in cooperative activities. Section three (governance) examined the extent to which CPR principles are in place. In all cases, validated scales were used [27-30] or informed the development of our own questions. Most items measured perceptions using a five-point Likert scale. Facility-use frequency questions were measured using a six-point ordinal scale, while open-ended questions were used to explore in greater depth the relationships between shared spaces, wellbeing, governance, and cooperation.

Open-ended responses and interview material were analysed using a qualitative analytical approach informed by the framework method [31]. The analysis followed the overall research design of the paper and combined deductive and inductive analytical strategies. First, qualitative responses were organized according to the three predefined forms of wellbeing (social, emotional, and physical wellbeing), associated activities, and the shared spaces in which they take place. Second, categories of cooperation emerged inductively from the data and were subsequently organized according to the forms of cooperation associated with different shared spaces. Third, the cooperative statute, governance practices, and residents’ accounts of community dynamics were examined through a deductive analytical framework based on Ostrom’s CPR principles in order to assess the extent to which institutional arrangements aligned with key CPR governance dimensions.

The questionnaire was distributed through the cooperative board, with one response requested per household. To increase participation, both online and printed versions were made available. In total, 25 out of 49 households completed the survey, resulting in a response rate of 51%. The respondents’ profile is as follows: 68% are female; 48% are aged between 45 and 64 years and another 48% between 65 and 79 years. Most hold a university degree (80%), nearly half are in active employment (48%), 72% are tenants, and 76% have lived in the community for more than 20 years.

Documentation and direct observation, including participation in social activities such as the show choir performance, complemented the survey and interview data.

Shared spaces play a central role in the production of sustainable wellbeing by supporting everyday social, emotional, and physical practices. However, these spaces are not self-sustaining: their long-term functioning depends on continued cooperation around their maintenance, management, and use. This paper has examined how such cooperation can be stabilized through governance arrangements institutionalized in the German housing cooperative statute. The analysis indicates a strong correspondence between the cooperative statute and the governance principles proposed by CPR theory, suggesting that institutional arrangements play a central role in structuring, normalizing, and sustaining cooperation oriented toward shared wellbeing.

A large part of the cooperative’s success lies in the clear institutionalization of cooperation through three governance bodies: the general assembly, the executive board, and the supervisory board. Together, these bodies address key CPR challenges of provision, credible commitment, and monitoring by allocating specific functions, procedures, and schedules. Periodic statute-mandated meetings facilitate the provision of agreements that re-balance benefits and obligations, while ensuring the execution of mutual monitoring.

Crucially, participation in at least one governance body is mandatory rather than voluntary and constitutes an integral part of membership. Strong incentives for sustained participation are provided through the ownership regime: members simultaneously hold the status of tenants and collective owners, securing long-term affordable housing in exchange for active involvement in governance. Rule violations are rare, a pattern consistent with well-functioning CPR systems with a strong normative framework. Finally, the statute fosters a high degree of internal democracy and perceived fairness by distributing electoral and dismissal rights across governance bodies, while assigning final authority to the general assembly, composed of all members. This study also allows for several other preliminary conclusions.

First, the case material suggests that shared spaces play a fundamental role in the functioning of the cooperative system. They provide the physical settings in which different forms of wellbeing take place and operate as the central CPR whose everyday functioning depends on sustained cooperation. Importantly, the findings point to a circular relationship in which shared spaces enable wellbeing practices; these practices in turn increase the perceived value of shared spaces, which in turn motivates continued cooperation.

The common room and green areas clearly emerge as the most relevant spaces for wellbeing-related activities. The common room hosts a wide range of social wellbeing practices and functions as the primary arena for governance meetings, making it central to the operationalization of the statute and the continuous tinkering of rules in response to group needs. Its year-round flexibility and high demand continuously test negotiation processes, thereby reinforcing shared norms of reciprocity and perceived fairness. On the other hand, green areas—the central courtyard and boulevard— are particularly important for emotional and physical wellbeing. While the boulevard accommodates most physical activities, the courtyard—a semi-enclosed, semi-private space shaped by surrounding L-shaped and square buildings—primarily supports emotional wellbeing and stands out as the most valued place in the complex. It enables respondents’ most valued activity—relaxation—and is also the main setting for spontaneous conversations lasting more than five minutes. To a lesser extent, green areas also host social activities, making them the only spaces where all three forms of wellbeing converge. During the COVID-19 pandemic, activities traditionally held in the common room, such as the choir, expanded into these areas, highlighting their role in community resilience. The versatility of the common room and courtyard as multi-use spaces was repeatedly emphasized and positively valued.

Taken together, these findings suggest that shared spaces function as collective resources whose value derives both from the wellbeing practices they enable and from their capacity to sustain cooperation, thereby operating as both drivers and outcomes of collective action.

Second, the analysis shows that the cooperative operates as a highly organized collective unit in which cooperation is structured in ways that make individual contributions difficult to disentangle. While tasks related to the management and maintenance of apartments and buildings are formally assigned through the statute, responsibility for shared spaces largely rests with cooperative members. Over time, new forms of internal organization have emerged through working groups that extend beyond conventional housing-related tasks and address a wide range of organizational, technical, environmental, and social issues. Notably, 96% of respondents reported having participated in at least one working group, many indicating involvement across all activities related to the maintenance and management of shared spaces. These initiatives emerge from within the group, indicating strong internal commitment to collective organization.

The green areas and the common room concentrate both the highest levels of cooperative engagement and the greatest diversity of maintenance practices. Regular gardening activities dominate in the green areas, while cleaning and tidying tasks prevail in the common room, ensuring the proper functioning of the spaces most critical to everyday wellbeing. Terraces and playgrounds follow, where cooperation tends to be more reactive or incidental, such as renovation works or sand replacement. While the study sheds light on cooperative activities that sustain the usability and quality of shared resources over time, it does not address the formation and evolution of working groups, despite their central role in the success of the project. These findings point to the boundaries of the present analysis.

The study focuses on a single housing cooperative with a long-established culture of self-governance, a relatively homogeneous participant background, and a socially oriented architectural layout. These features constitute a best-case scenario, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Treating the statute as an enabling condition rather than an automatic guarantee of cooperation, future research could use larger and more diverse samples to examine how group composition (e.g., minimum number of cooperators) shapes the transition from a purely functional housing arrangement to a wellbeing-producing collective unit. Additionally, further studies should explore the role of scale and resource sufficiency, as well as how adaptive institutional responses address emerging social and spatial tensions. The case material suggests that the German housing cooperative statute may provide enabling conditions for the production of collective wellbeing in cooperative housing contexts. By institutionalizing cooperation for the common good, it enables a legally supported and socially embedded form of sustainable living.

These findings contribute to existing research on cooperative housing by shifting attention from the general social and material benefits of cooperatives to the mechanisms through which these outcomes are produced and sustained over time. In particular, the study highlights how the interaction between spatial configurations (shared spaces) and institutional arrangements (cooperative statute aligned with CPR principles) supports the continuous reproduction of wellbeing practices in everyday residential life. Rather than treating wellbeing as a by-product of cooperative housing, the analysis shows how it is actively maintained through ongoing forms of collective organization and spatial use.

To conclude, we point out the role of government as an enabler of this housing model. The long waiting lists for cooperative membership in Germany point to sustained demand for a model that generates wellbeing through multiple, interrelated pathways embedded in spatial and institutional arrangements in everyday residential life.