State-Led Commons? Rethinking Housing Affordability Through Community Land Trusts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting contribution with a very well developed literature study on the key concepts in the paper. The theoretical perspectives are clearly explained and effectively linked to the real-life case. Overall, this is a valuable and relevant submission for the journal.

My review result is: minor revision

 

I have two suggestions for revision.

1. Extend the description of the methods applied

Page 10: “Following an iterative and reflexive research methodology [96], we aimed at not only gathering data from research participants but also allowing them to influence the research process. Through joint problematization moments, research questions and design were co-formulated and adjusted to the interests or both the researchers and the collaborating CLTL actors.”

Please explain how this was executed in the CLT cafes (?) and what was the results of this co-design. More information about the participants is very welcome.

2. Reflect on the methods applied in the conclusions

What are the limitations and suggestions for future research? Please reflect on the role of one of the authors as intern in the CLT and the participation in the CLT café’s.

Author Response

Comment 1: 

Page 10: “Following an iterative and reflexive research methodology [96], we aimed at not only gathering data from research participants but also allowing them to influence the research process. Through joint problematization moments, research questions and design were co-formulated and adjusted to the interests or both the researchers and the collaborating CLTL actors.” Please explain how this was executed in the CLT cafes (?) and what was the results of this co-design. More information about the participants is very welcome.

Response 1: 

Thank you for this comment. CLT Cafés were participatory sessions initiated by the municipality and not by us–as a research activity. We have added a paragraph in section 3.3. to elaborate on the methodology providing more information about participants and research methods further clarifying this issue (page 11, lines 499-515).

Comment 2:

What are the limitations and suggestions for future research? Please reflect on the role of one of the authors as intern in the CLT and the participation in the CLT café’s.

Response 2:

Thank you for pointing this out. We have added a paragraph in section 3.3 (page 11, lines 499-515), where we explain the involvement of the intern in the CLT and the way it affected methodological choices and perspectives. We clarify that the internship within the CLTL was a central part of the methodology. However it was not about organizing or participating in the CLT Cafés (those were municipal-led), but about gaining direct access to the CLTL coordinator’s task and the broad council activities. In the conclusions (page 18, lines 815-835), we reflect on this methodological choices and limitations and make suggestions for future research (page 18, lines 815-823) and policy implications (page 18, lines 824-835).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please refer to the attached file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. Introduction

Comment 1.

I recommend clearly separating the theoretical, empirical, and methodological contributions in the introduction or conclusion. Moreover, how exactly this paper differs from prior studies on Brussels or Ghent CLTs should be made clearer what new insight does this case offer beyond reinforcing the notion of "hybrid governance"?

Response 1.

Thank you for this comment. We have addded a paragraph in the introduction to clearly present the theoretical, empirical and methodological contributions of this paper (page 3, lines 108-121).

2. Theoretical Framework

Comment 2.

The manuscript draws on an impressive range of scholarly work, including governance theory, political ecology, and commons literature. It successfully brings together foundational and recent contributions. Nevertheless, the research gap is somewhat buried in the dense theoretical exposition. I suggest summarizing the gap more concisely (e.g., in the final paragraph of this section), to help readers immediately grasp the need for this study.

Response 2.

We believe we have addressed this comment by clarifying the theoretical contributions of this paper at the end of the introduction (page 3, lines 108-121).

3. Case study

Comment 3.

The empirical base is rich, based on fieldwork, interviews, participant observation, and document analysis. The authors also benefit from privileged access, including one co-author's internship with the CLTL. However, some additional clarifications are needed. How were interviewees selected? Were there any efforts to ensure representation from future residents, civil society, and policymakers? Were there any concerns with positionality or bias due to the internship? How were these addressed methodologically?

Response 3.

Thank you for pointing this. We restructured the end of section 3.3 of the manuscript and added a paragraph to address this comment (page 11, lines 499-515).

4. Methodology

Comment 4.

The qualitative case study design aligns with the research questions and is appropriate for the exploratory nature of the study. The use of Strategic Relational Institutionalism (SRI) is conceptually robust. Still, the authors could strengthen this section by explaining: why other methods (e.g. comparative case study, process tracing, or formal institutional analysis) were not adopted?

Response 4.

While we acknowledge the relevance of alternative methodologies such as comparative case studies, process tracing, or formal institutional analysis, providing a detailed justification for not adopting these or other methods would open a broader methodological debate that cannot be adequately addressed within the scope of this paper. Instead, to respond to the reviewer’s concern, we have added a clarifying sentence that highlights the specific methodological contribution of the paper (page 3, lines 118-121).

5. Findings

Comment 5.1.

This manuscript includes the depth of process tracing and institutional reflection is commendable. Still, I encourage the authors to reflect more critically on the limitations of their evidence, especially the limited voice of actual or prospective CLT residents.

Response 5.1.

Thank you for this comment. We have added a paragraph in the conclusions to reflect on this issue (page 18, lines 815-823).

Comment 5.2.

Also, the authors may discuss the risks of co-optation not just as theoretical possibilities but as observed tendencies, supported by evidence.

Response 5.2.

Thank you for the valuable comment. We added a paragraph in section 5 to elaborate on the risks of co-optation providing further evidence (page 16, lines 729-744).

Comment 5.3.

Besides, consider adding a brief reflexive discussion on how research collaboration may have influenced findings.

Response 5.3.

Thank you for this insightful suggestion. We have added a clarification in the methodological section (page 11, lines 503-515) and at the end of the conclusions (page 18, lines 815-823) to address this comment.  

6. Policy Implications and Discussion

Comment 6.

The conclusion highlights broad, important implications such as "incremental decommodification" and "institutional hacking," which are intellectually stimulating. However, the societal and policy relevance could be made more concrete. For example: what specific lessons can be drawn for policymakers in other cities seeking to implement CLTs? What governance safeguards can be recommended to avoid state domination or market capture? How should municipalities balance their dual role as initiator and regulator? A dedicated 'Policy Implications' subsection or a clearer set of practical takeaways in the Conclusion would enhance the manuscript's applied relevance.

Response 6.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have added a paragraph in the conclusions (section 6) to translate our research findings into critical lessons for policymakers (page 18, lines 824-835).

Minor comments

(Minor) Comment 7.

Please define abbreviations such as CLT, AGSL, SON, etc., upon first use even if they are common within the field.

Response 7.

We thoroughly checked and we define all abbreviations upon first use (CLT in the abstract and in the introduction on page 3; AGSL on page 9; SON on page 10). If there is any abbreviation that skipped our attention, kindly let us know.

(Minor) Comment 8.

A visual model or diagram summarizing the SRI framework as applied to CLTL could aid reader comprehension.

Response 8.

Thank you for this comment. Although we did not create a visual model to summarize the SRI framework, we aimed to improve and enrich our figures to aid readers comprehension in the empirical part (page 12, lines 564-566).

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have conducted a comprehensive and well-structured literature review. The article presents a compelling discussion of the issue of housing accessibility in Belgium and the increasing demand for social housing. The authors clearly highlight the need to develop housing within the framework of the Community Land Trust (CLT) model.

The city of Leuven is exploring alternative approaches aimed at ensuring long-term housing affordability and preserving housing as a public asset, while simultaneously securing sustainable funding mechanisms. The study identifies a significant gap in the existing housing stock that the CLT Leuven (CLTL) initiative seeks to address.

The authors were directly involved in the process of creating housing stock under the CLT program. This initiative was developed through a collaborative governance model that progressively engaged multiple stakeholders, ensuring democratic decision-making and active civic participation. The city played a central role in shaping this governance structure—both as an initiator and a facilitator—providing institutional support and financial resources.

Under this model, individuals purchasing a home are responsible only for the cost of constructing the building itself, not for the land, which significantly reduces the overall housing cost. A key feature of the CLT model is the resale formula, jointly developed by CLTL board members, which prevents excessive price increases by setting a cap on resale value and returning a substantial share of the accrued equity to the CLT. The CLTL model thus represents a transformative approach to housing, shifting from an individual asset-based model to one grounded in community ownership and housing rights.

The article essentially offers a descriptive account of the investment process and the accompanying system of stakeholder involvement, including local and national authorities as well as the local community.

In my view, the article is highly engaging and provides valuable insights. However, I recommend introducing greater structure—for example, by presenting the stages of the investment process in a block diagram. Such a diagram could illustrate stakeholder engagement, key milestones, and attitudes at various phases of the project. This addition would enrich the article, enhance its academic value, and introduce a more scientific dimension to the strategy for supporting affordable housing development.

Author Response

Comment 1.

In my view, the article is highly engaging and provides valuable insights. However, I recommend introducing greater structure—for example, by presenting the stages of the investment process in a block diagram. Such a diagram could illustrate stakeholder engagement, key milestones, and attitudes at various phases of the project. This addition would enrich the article, enhance its academic value, and introduce a more scientific dimension to the strategy for supporting affordable housing development.

Response 1.

Thank you for this valuable comment. We have created and added a scheme (page 12, lines 564-566) to visualise the development and tripartite governance structure of the CLTL.