Two strategies used by local intersectoral networks to create healthier environments: a cross-case analysis in the Montreal urban setting

ABSTRACT

Action aimed at developing healthier living conditions requires intersectoral collaboration, both across sectors and between levels of government. It also calls for the commitment of political and institutional authorities at municipal and higher levels. This article focuses on strategies of local intersectoral networks rooted in civil society for addressing living conditions. A longitudinal cross-case analysis was performed on eight case studies in Montreal (Canada). Data sources include 1445 documents and 41 interviews. Case studies were analyzed based on a theoretical framework focusing on critical events and a repertoire of transitional outcomes (TOs) that local intersectoral networks mobilised in order to produce change. The analysis focussed on the distribution of TOs in each case. Two types of strategies were identified. The Do It strategy relied primarily on acquiring resources as well as expanding and strengthening networks and projects. In this strategy, networks held the key decision-making and action levers to drive projects by themselves. In contrast, the Make It Happen strategy was mainly constructed around actions that led to self-representation and influencing others. In this strategy, networks held certain levers – such as mobilizing their citizen and community bases – but they also had to convince decision-makers to support action. This article describes and compares the key features of these two types of action strategies for local change.

KEYWORDS:

• Local intersectoral action
• levers of action in intersectoral collaborations
• longitudinal multi-case study
• actor-network theory

Introduction

It has been clearly established that living conditions affect health and well-being and that these conditions are shaped by political, social and environmental decisions at different levels of government (Commission on Social Determinants of Health [CSDH], 2008). Acting on these conditions requires the involvement and coordination of various societal sectors (public, private, associative, philanthropic, in food, transport, education, etc.) and the crucial commitment of political and institutional authorities at municipal and higher levels (Bryson et al., 2015; Mondal et al., 2021). These requirements make intersectoral action demanding and difficult to achieve. The scientific literature has identified a range of factors that favour or impede intersectoral collaborations, including leadership, shared goals, key roles, expertise, resources, trust, interplay among the competing logics, conflict resolution, and top-level involvement (Chircop et al., 2015; Seaton et al., 2017; Varda et al., 2012). Moreover, the literature contains a number of conceptual frameworks for understanding intersectoral action (Bryson et al., 2015; Calancie et al., 2021; Emerson et al., 2012).

Some reviews deal with the specific relations between intersectoral networks rooted in civil society and public authorities. The participation of community and civil society organizations can evolve from consultation to more meaningful engagement, such as collective reflection to produce problem-solution framings anchored in the community (Calancie et al., 2021; Dentoni et al., 2018). Yet the ways to make this participation meaningful are often limited, and numerous obstacles (e.g. sectoral logics) need to be overcome (Fiorati et al., 2018; Mondal et al., 2021). Power imbalance is often mentioned as hindering intersectoral action (Bryson et al., 2015; Dentoni et al., 2018), particularly between local communities and community organizations on the one hand, and public authorities on the other hand, as well as when the private sector is involved (Mondal et al., 2021). Civil society organizations may assume a set of roles, such as pioneering new practices that can be adopted by policy makers, meeting needs that are no longer fulfilled by the State, or sustaining democratic processes (Frantzeskaki et al., 2016). Collaborative governance is seen as a way of integrating such inputs from civil society into decision-making (Ansell & Gash, 2008). Caution is called for, however, since there is no guarantee that they will bring about desired effects (Dentoni et al., 2018; Mondal et al., 2021).

In summary, intersectoral networks face a number of persistent challenges, such as becoming a respected voice in the public and political arenas, providing credible solutions to existing problems, and acquiring adequate resources to operate (Frantzeskaki et al., 2016; Mondal et al., 2021). Researchers need to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the relational dynamics contributing to these challenges, and how to manage them in practice (Calancie et al., 2021; Frantzeskaki et al., 2016; Mondal et al., 2021). Based on empirical data, this article aims to highlight the action strategies deployed by local intersectoral networks rooted in civil society to improve living conditions.

Conceptual framework

In previous work (Bilodeau et al., 2022), we developed and validated a midrange theory of the process-effects links of local intersectoral action anchored in Actor-Network Theory (ANT) (Latour, 2005). Recognised as a powerful tool for analysing the production of change in complex systems, ANT provides for tracking the genesis of interventions in the form of a networking process, showing how effects are produced (Bilodeau & Potvin, 2018; Broer et al., 2010; Duff, 2011). Within this conceptualization, local intersectoral actions may be viewed as a process of assembling human (social actors) and non-human entities (knowledge, objects, technologies, facts, funding, laws, programs, etc.) within a given situation so as to produce change.

These entities are connected through constant translations (assemblages, negotiation, mediation) which make them converge towards a common problematization, negotiate shared interests, engage in new roles, and set common projects in motion. (Bilodeau et al., 2022, p. 2)

Non-human entities – differently but not unlike social actors – interact within the networks and influence the action. Through the creation, reconfiguration, and extension of sociotechnical networks, innovative solutions are constructed in response to situations deemed problematic (Bilodeau & Potvin, 2018; Callon, 1986, 1989; Latour, 2005).

The midrange theory we developed shows that local intersectoral networks produce observable transformations in living environments by linking a limited number of transitional outcomes (TOs) that punctuate the course of the action towards its effects. Twelve TOs relevant to three essential functions of intersectoral networks have been identified. Together, they capture in generic and theoretically informed terms the critical events that mark the progress and setbacks of intersectoral action towards determinate effects. These TOs are linked in different ways by local intersectoral networks according to their contexts and objectives.

The first function – Network setup and governance – includes three TOs that capture network building actions, as well as those that help move controversies forward and regulate network action so that actors can work together. TOs in this function embody the actions that networks need to mobilize in order to develop a shared vision of community needs and relevant solutions. The five TOs associated with the second function – Self-representing and influencing others – concern the productions and representations used by networks to communicate who they are and their projects, to solicit support and resources, and to gain legitimacy and credibility with other actors they seek to interest and influence. To this end, the networks produce intermediaries – strategic tools (plans, reports, briefs) – which they send to targeted interlocutors. They also make representations to promote themselves and their projects and solicit support and resources. The four TOs of the third function – Aligning necessary actors and resources – depend mainly on the external actors that the networks seek to mobilize in order to strengthen themselves, solidify their projects, and achieve their goals. In this last function, the critical impacts of failure to interest or rally key actors or of the dissidence between actors already involved in the action can be observed. Four negative counterpart TOs capture these losses and setbacks. Table 1 presents the three functions and provides a brief definition of the associated TOs.

Table 1. Summary definitions of the 12 transitional outcomes of the midrange theory on the process-effects links of local intersectoral action in living environments.

1^st function Network Setup and Governance Internal to the network	3^rd function Aligning Necessary Actors and Resources Seeking to rally key actors and resources/ looses and setbacks
1 Network Construction Continuous linking of heterogeneous social actors and non-human entities (e.g. knowledge, policies, technologies, money) and putting them into motion in collective projects, which steers the course of action (e.g. mobilizing actors to take action for a common objective). 2 Adoption of Network Governance Structures and Rules Adoption of methods for collective functioning within a network to regulate participation, decision-making, and coordination of activities (e.g. create a committee and designate its coordination). 3 Handling of Controversies Identification and elaboration of solutions when facing controversies that prevent actors from cooperating and action from progressing (e.g. take an alternative, consensual course of action).	9[+] Alignment of Interests- Actor Movements Convergence of positions, commitment of actors to new roles, transformations in power relations that promote the continuation of collective action and its coordination. 9[-] Misalignment of Interests Emergence of divergent interests, change in the position of strategic actors who have interests that are contrary to a project’s progress and that hinder the actions (e.g. a network actor opting for a new course of action). 10[+] Resource Acquisition Access to the resources (funding, labour, expertise, technical support) needed for the network’s operation and to achieve its goals. 10[-] Loss or Failure to Obtain Resources Loss of financial, human, or material resources or failure to obtain these resources (e.g. refusal of a grant). 11[+] Expansion and Strengthening of Networks and their Projects Maintaining mobilization, recruiting new actors, adding non-human entities, strengthening relationships and skills within a network or between networks. Strengthening or expansion of the network’s projects. 11[-] Weakening and Reduction of Networks and Their Projects Withdrawal of strategic actors, loss of resources, dissidence of a critical mass of actors that weakens networks and their project so that they struggle to push action ahead (e.g. departure of a project coordinator). 12[+] Commitment of Decision-Makers in Achieving Change Commitment of actors holding the decision-making and levers of action essential to project implementation (e.g. licensing). 12[-] Non or Disengagement of Decision-Makers that Hinders Achieving Change Non-engagement or disengagement of actors holding the decision-making and levers of action essential to project implementation (e.g. refusal to grant a municipal permit).
2^nd function Self-Representing and Influencing Others Seeking support and external recognition
4 Production of Intermediaries Expression of convergent ideas and positions into a network in material forms (e.g. plans, reports or briefs collectively written). 5 Placement of Intermediaries Introduction of intermediaries into other networks, to decision-makers, to media, or into other intermediaries (e.g. a brief sent to authorities). 6 Activation of Intermediaries Promotion and use of intermediaries by actors and networks of interest (e.g. politician who distributes a network’s document to his administration). 7 Representation by Spokespersons Action/statements (meeting, letter, manifestation) to communicate positions, generate interest, or influence the position and commitment of other strategic actors or networks (e.g. elected officials). 8 Strengthening of Spokespersons and Intermediaries Reinforcement of the legitimacy and credibility of spokespersons and the intermediaries they carry, making them better recognized by the populations and groups on whose behalf they speak and taken into greater consideration by strategic actors (e.g. being guest speaker at a municipal meeting).

We used this midrange theory to answer the following question: what strategies do local intersectoral networks rooted in civil society mobilize to carry out actions leading to significant transformations in living environments?

Methods

Our method was inspired by Hawe (2015) and Hawe et al. (2009) who viewed complex interventions as evolving systems of events within broader existing systems and contexts. The method chosen to capture these dynamics involves a chronological reconstitution of the critical events that punctuate the evolution of the intersectoral processes (Bilodeau & Potvin, 2018).

The intersectoral processes under study in this paper took place in urban Montreal (Canada). Here, local intersectoral action is organized through 32 Neighbourhood Committees (NCs). These committees are permanent local coordination bodies that bring together key actors (community organizations, institutions, elected officials, philanthropic and private organizations, citizens) involved in social development projects. The NCs have been funded by the Montreal Initiative for Local Social Development (MI) since 1997. MI is a regional program bringing together three funders (Centraide of Greater Montreal – a philanthropic organization, the City of Montreal and the Montreal Directorate of Public Health), and the Montreal NC Coalition, which represents the 32 NCs.

This research was conducted between 2017 and 2021 in partnership with the MI partners and two local volunteer NCs. Eight cases were selected in collaboration with these two NCs to represent the range of projects they had been involved with. Cases comprised action systems (a limited number of human and non-human entities and their interactions aiming to achieve a set of objectives) created and maintained for at least 18 months prior to data collection. They included a mix of completed or ongoing processes with or without effects, understood as observable material or social transformations. Table 2 presents a brief description of the cases. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the University of Montreal Health Research Ethics Committee (17–130-CERES-D). A longitudinal cross-case analysis was conducted on a database developed from the eight case studies.

Table 2. Short description of cases and their effects for the eight cases constitutive of the database.

	CASES (period of observation) Description Terminated/In Progress – Effects or not
1	URBAN AGRICULTURE IN EDUCATION (2015–2018) A network deployed around a food garden project in a secondary school. Initially pedagogical and socio-environmental, other objectives were added as it meshed with partners in the neighborhood, such as creating a local food system and developing employability. In progress. Recurring effects: popular education, development of specialized skills, access to healthy and affordable food.
2	COLLECTIVE FOOD PURCHASING (2013–2018) A local food network working to set up a collective food purchasing group and a true local food system (supply, redistribution and processing). This project quickly succeeded in improving economic and geographical access to low-cost food for all neighbourhood residents, with a majority of low-income customers. In progress. Recurring effects: access to healthy and affordable food.
3	REHABILITATION OF AN URBAN INDUSTRIAL SITE (2014–2018) A local network’s participatory urban planning process to rehabilitate a former quarry in an innovative project that would benefit the citizens. These consultations served the network in its representations to political actors who are faced with competing projects with varying objectives and uncertain benefits for the local population. In progress. No effects.
4	SOCIAL PRICING OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT (2011–2019) A local advocacy network that joined forces with a regional network demanding more economic access to public transit. Through various forms of representations, this network succeeded in bringing high transit fares and social pricing into the public debate. In progress. No effects.
5	FOOD SHOPS SERVED BY PUBLIC TRANSPORT 2007–2018) A local network’s project combining transit and food issues aimed at improving bus service to food shops. Project built on a long history of consultation in the neighbourhood. In progress. Recurring effects: creation of a new bus route that improves the access to food shops.
6	SOCIAL HOUSING AND COHOUSING (2011–2014) A local network-led multi-faceted project (daycare, affordable and cohousing) on the site of a church. Despite the alignment of multiple stakeholders, the refusal of the actors holding the levers of action (religious and municipal authorities) put an end to the concerted efforts. Terminated. No effects.
7	SOCIAL HOUSING (2009–2010) A local network’s community housing development on a religious institution site. With multiple actors involved and enriched by a public consultation, the project was abandoned because of a turnaround of the religious institution who was initially committed to the project. Terminated. No effects.
8	HEALTHY HOUSING (2005–2017) A local network’s project to create a housing assistance resource and implement an intervention to promote healthy housing. Gathering convincing evidence through community organizations’ outreach to tenants in targeted buildings helped the City’s inspection service commitment to action. The weakening of the cooperation of the inspection service resulting in the end of the project. Terminated. Effects: Resolution of unsanitary conditions of three-quarters of the participants after an inspection visit.

Database

The data source consisted of written documents (administrative, governmental, and media) supplemented by interviews with key actors (such as NC coordinators, community partners, and project managers) to validate and complement the documentary analysis. A total of 1445 documents and 41 interviews were compiled from the eight cases. Online supplemental file 1 lists data sources in each case.

In reference to ANT, we used six categories of variables to study the action system in each case. First, there were the entities of the sociotechnical network: i) social actors from public, community, political or private sectors, and citizens; their social position – place in society; their identity/roles – relationship to the action; their interests/issues – reasons for involvement in the action and what was at stake; and their power relations – capacity to influence others’ behaviour and position within the system; ii) non-human entities and their agency – what they do and make social actors do – (knowledge, information, legislation and public policies, programs, material and financial resources, etc.); and iii) the relationships among these entities. Second, there were the critical events – repeatedly mentioned in the data sources as having led to transformations in the action system (Figueiro et al., 2017). These included the withdrawal of actors; the integration of new actors, resources or knowledge; changes in the actors’ interests and representations of the situation; new roles negotiated; controversies – competing positions among actors – and their handling; mediation and generation of new solutions; opportunities seized and constraints imposed on the action. Third, there was the network purpose – in the form of what it sought to produce or transform. Fourth, there was the context that the actors evoked or integrated as part of their action system: geographical location with its resources, constraints, populations, organizations, ongoing activities and relations among these entities. Fifth, there were effects – in the form of observable transformations in the availability/accessibility of resources and services to improve local living conditions and that resulted from the action of the local intersectoral network, as reported in the case documentation or by key informants, and corroborated by the researchers. Lastly, sixth, there was the inventory of 12 TOs from the midrange theory.

For each case, we extracted the data related to these six categories of variables and assembled them in a chronological matrix built around the critical events. In each case, the critical events and their sequence – interpreted in terms of transitional outcomes (TOs) – were used for drawing up a chronological narrative that was validated by the key actors. We created the database used for the cross-case analysis by reducing the narratives by answering the following questions: what action was produced; when; by whom; with what consequence for the course of action; and with what TOs? The database contained 578 events related to 794 transitional outcomes (TOs), as an event could be associated with more than one TO.

Cross-case analysis

We began the cross-case analysis by developing a frequency distribution of TOs by functions in each case. Our analysis involved grouping cases together according to their use of the three functions and interpreting the groups based on the meaning of the functions in the midrange theory. Online supplemental file 2 details these data.

We then conducted a longitudinal analysis. Based on the midrange theory – which posits that intersectoral action progresses by linking TOs – we arbitrarily subdivided the chain of critical events in each case into ten equal parts. This was done to document transformations in each case’s process of development over time, specifically which TOs were produced at different time points. After examining this data, we grouped the first to the fifth parts together (first half of the process), and the sixth to tenth parts together (second half of the process), to highlight the most important findings.

Findings

Description of cases

In the eight cases studied, intersectoral networks acted on local living conditions, such as healthy and affordable food (cases 1 and 2), affordable and efficient public transportation (cases 4 and 5), housing quality and social housing (cases 6, 7, and 8), and urban land use planning (case 3) (cf. Table 2). In each case, the non-profit sector was deeply involved as a primary contributor and leader of the Neighbourhood Committees, followed by municipal civil servants and elected officials at higher levels of government. Other actors included public institutions (e.g. education, transportation, employment, and health), philanthropic organizations as well as private organizations, and the media. The non-human entities included knowledge, study reports, and programs; maps; legislation and regulations; funding; communication tools; resources; physical infrastructure; and equipment. There were also some elements related to living conditions that were translated into project problems and goals, such as the high cost of public transportation. Online supplemental file 3 details the categories of human and non-human entities involved in each network.

Results from the distribution analysis

In accordance with ANT, actions operated in networks are closely associated with the network’s composition. The term network-project accounts for this interdependency. As shown in Table 3, two groups were identified from the eight cases studied based on the occurrence frequency of the three functions used during their processes. This highlights two types of network-project, differentiated by the strategies deployed to move towards their goals.

Table 3. Cumulative frequencies of TOs in each function and their percentage distributions in each case broken by Do It or Make It Happen strategies.

	Cases	Function 1 Network Setup and Governance TO1 to TO3	Function 2 Self-Representing and Influencing Others TO4 to TO8	Function 3 Aligning Necessary Actors and Resources TO9 ± to TO12 ±	Total
Group 1: Do It strategy
1	Urban agriculture in education	3	22	58/1	84 100%
		3%	27%	69%/1%
2	Collective food purchasing	9	30	51/7	97 100%
		9%	31%	53%/7%
Subtotal		12	52	109/8	181
		7%	29%	60%/4%	100%
Group 2: Make It Happen strategy
3	Rehabilitation of industrial site	6	42	18	66 100%
		9%	64%	27%/0%
4	Social pricing of public transport	23	174	50/4	251 100%
		9%	69%	20%/2%
5	Food shops served by public transport	10	60	20/1	91 100%
		11%	66%	22%/1%
6	Social housing and cohousing	12	8	5/6	31 100%
		39%	26%	16%/19%
7	Social housing	14	23	8/3	48 100%
		29%	48%	17%/6%
8	Healthy housing	18	62	35/11	126 100%
		14%	49%	28%/9%
Subtotal		83	369	136/25	613
		14%	60%	22%/4%	100%

Key: TO+: Progression; TO-: Losses and setbacks.

In the Do It strategy (cases 1 and 2), the networks mainly produced transitional outcomes (TOs) related to the third function – Aligning Necessary Actors and Resources. This consisted of bringing together key actors, resources and the levers of decision-making needed to produce observable transformations in the living environments. In these cases, the networks held the main levers of decision and action to lead the projects by themselves. They were able to acquire and mobilize the assets needed. Resource acquisition (TO10+) was central in both cases, accounting for more than half of all the resource acquisitions observed in all eight cases. The Do It strategy also took advantage of events that expanded and strengthened their networks, more so than in the other six cases combined (Table 4). For example, in the case of Urban Agriculture in education, the initial network mobilized around educational objectives linked to partners in the neighbourhood, including some engaged in Collective food purchasing, to create a local food system and stimulate employability. The growing network therefore controlled the decisions and levers of action that enabled it to expand beyond the school walls.

Table 4. Frequency of TOs for the 1^st and 2^nd half of the chain of critical events in the Do It (2 cases) and the Make It Happen strategies (6 cases) over the three functions.

Functions	TOs	Do It strategy			Make It Happen strategy
		1^st half	2^nd half	Total 181 TOs	1^st half	2^nd half	Total 613 TOs
Function 1 Network Setup and Governance	TO1 Network construction	6	0	12 TOs 7%	49	22	83 TOs 14%
	TO2 Governance, structures and rules	3	2		8	3
	TO3 Handling controversies	0	1		1	0
Function 2 Self-Representing and Influencing Others	TO4 Production of intermediaries	8	5	52 TOs 29%	44	36	369 TOs 60%
	TO5 Placement of intermediaries	5	4		38	41
	TO6 Activation of intermediaries	0	0		11	20
	TO7 Representations by spokespersons	6	12		57	65
	TO8 Strengthening of spokespersons and intermediaries	8	4		19	38
Function 3 Aligning Necessary Actors and Resources	TO9[±] Alignment/Misalignment of interests	10/1	10/0	109 TOs+ 60% 8 TOs- 4%	24/4	34/1	136 TOs+ 22% 25 TOs- 4%
	TO10[±] Resources acquisition/Loss or failure	18/2	23/1		16/2	14/4
	TO11[±] Expansion and strengthening/Weakening and reduction of network-projects	10/1	35/3		17/3	22/6
	TO12[±] Commitment of decision-makers/Non or disengagement	2/0	1/0		4/0	5/5

In contrast, the networks-projects of the Make It Happen strategy (cases 3 to 8) produced more TOs related to the second function – Self-Representing and Influencing Others (Table 3). These networks had control over certain levers such as the mobilization of their community and citizen bases as well as the relevant expertise to carry out projects. Realizing their projects, however, meant obtaining the support of decision-makers. Community mobilization served to influence and obtain the commitment of the public (e.g. the municipal authority) or private (e.g. a landowner) actors who had the decision-making power and leverage to make the network’s projects happen (e.g. allocation of resources, by-law amendments). For example, in cases 5 and 8, citizen input in public transit and community organizations working with tenants in targeted buildings signalled the needs of citizens, mobilized local organizations, and built a strong case to present to decision-makers. Nevertheless, both these networks needed the commitment of authorities – the public transit system to consult with the community on the new bus line in one case, and the City’s inspection service for substandard housing in the other.

The Make It Happen networks-projects also mobilized actions in the third function – Aligning Necessary Actors and Resources. In the six cases, the networks worked hard to obtain support of stakeholders and commitment from decision-makers. In three cases (cases 6, 7 and 8), they terminated projects given disengagement or the lack of commitment. The two networks-projects with effects (cases 5 and 8) produced at least one occurrence of Commitment of Decision-Makers in Achieving Change (TO12+), i.e. by the public transit authority in case 5 and the by City’s inspection service in case 8.

Results from the longitudinal analysis

Regarding the Do It strategy, the longitudinal data of the third function (Table 4) show that Resource Acquisitions (TO10+) occurred throughout the processes while Expansions/Strengthening of Networks-Projects (TO11+) occurred mainly in the second half of the chain of events. Early addition of resources enabled networks-projects to grow stronger. These are assets that networks mobilized on their own to improve the services they provided and consolidate their role in their community.

In the Make it Happen strategy, the longitudinal data of the second function (Table 4) show that networks-projects had continually to demonstrate that their projects were well grounded and met important needs of the population. Authorities tended to acknowledge this only after the citizen and community bases had recognized the legitimacy and credibility of the projects. Thus, the production (TO4) and placement (TO5) of intermediaries and representations (TO7) tended to occur throughout the processes, whereas obtaining the strengthening of spokespersons and intermediaries (TO8) occurred mostly during the second half of the chains of events.

Regarding the Make It Happen strategy, Network Constructions (TO1) – entry of new human and non-human entities into the networks – occurred throughout the processes and continually steered the course of action. In contrast, in the Do It cases, TO1 entries only occurred during the first half of the processes, with the networks tending to forge ahead under their own momentum thereafter (Table 4). In the Make It Happen strategy, new social actors were continuously involved to support projects and reinforce their feasibility (e.g. technical resource groups in cases 6 and 7 on housing; liaison with advocacy committees in other cities in case 4 – Social pricing of public transport; and university students with concrete proposals in case 3 – Rehabilitation of an urban industrial site). More than half (59%) of the additional entities were non-human whose influence came in two ways: by providing specialized knowledge (studies, surveys, successful experiences elsewhere) which contributed to the vision building and argumentation of the projects; or by the provision of context-related information (change in a funding program, new legislation, zoning rules) which guided or modified the projects.

Discussion

This study highlighted two strategies and key actions through which local intersectoral networks rooted in civil society moved forward to improve living environments. The Do It and Make It Happen strategies depended on the control the networks-projects had over decision-making and levers of action, and on the commitment from public authorities.

The community-based organizations in the two Do It projects had a long tradition of involvement that gave them the know-how and capabilities to gain additional partners and resources that they could mobilize on their own. In contrast, the six Make It Happen projects focused on living conditions mainly under the control of municipal authorities and higher up. Thus, local intersectoral networks had to gain the necessary commitment of these authorities. This resulted in two categories of enabling resources in the living environment, depending on the network’s strengths and the involvement of authorities. The commitment of authorities – or the lack thereof – directly affects the purpose, structure, and outcome of intersectoral collaborations (Bryson et al., 2015; Mondal et al., 2021). In addition, this double standard impacts the creation of enabling environments, insofar as these environments can only be built by assembling a diversity of enabling resources and the fact that these various resources are comprised of diverse networks of actors (Duff, 2011).

A specific contribution of our study is to show where the networks’ efforts were mainly directed according to the Do It and the Make It Happen strategies. The Do it strategy implies concentrating efforts on the citizen and community bases to strengthen people’s capacity and collective resources. In contrast, the Make It Happen strategy requires a great deal of effort to mastering the second function – Self-representing and influencing others – so as to solicit and obtain recognition of the validity and acuity of the needs expressed as well as the relevance of the solutions presented. To this end, the networks-projects maintained a close connection both with their citizen and community bases and with public authorities. In addition, they combined popular education and citizen mobilization with strategies for questioning public authorities. Thus, these networks demonstrated an in-depth ability to combine a considerable amount of information concerning local territories and the needs of their inhabitants in order to effectively communicate these realities to municipal or higher authorities. They concomitantly conducted projects on a variety of current issues that affected populations and living environments, which enabled them to take advantage of favourable political contexts arising in one area or another. Creating context – relevant solutions, based on inhabitant experiences and perspectives, is seen as a key strategy for intersectoral collaboration to achieve transformative change (Frantzeskaki et al., 2016). These kinds of practices, implemented with the aim of supporting political linkages, have been documented as being crucial in establishing and maintaining the collaborative process (Mondal et al., 2021). Our study adds that, in the Make It Happen strategy, combining downward-facing and upward-facing approaches within the same networks requires mastering a set of practices not required to the same degree in the Do It strategy.

Lastly, horizontally, the collaborative practices built on the critical role of community organizations. These organizations ensured the sustainability of intersectoral action aimed at enhancing the quality of living conditions. Community engagement is recognized as an essential ingredient of intersectoral action (Calancie et al., 2021). In this respect, the importance of actions pertaining to the second function – Self-representing and influencing others – highlights the sum and consistency of the efforts deployed by local networks to gain the commitment of public authorities and to achieve or progress towards changes. Despite this, it would appear that the achieved effects were not consistent with the central role played by the community organizations in networks, this being a characteristic of the Make It Happen logic. Vertically, these collaborative practices both solicited and fueled participatory governance within the municipal structure. Our results show that recognition by the authorities – mainly municipal ones – came after long chains of intermediary placements and representations, typically in the last half of the sequences of events. Such late recognition affected the rights of disadvantaged people, on whose behalf intersectoral networks advocate, and relates to equity in access to resources, a public value that falls within the scope of what intersectoral networks are intended to accomplish (Bryson et al., 2015). These kinds of power imbalance are a significant constraint in gaining societal equity in health (Bryson et al., 2015; Dentoni et al., 2018; Mondal et al., 2021).

Study limits

The heterogeneity of cases involved in this study limits its analytic potential. In addition to covering a wide range of living conditions, the cases studied differ in their scope, some had a local radius and involved modest costs (e.g. cases 5 and 8), while others extended regionally and beyond, involving societal choices and implying high costs (e.g. cases 3 and 4). This raises an important question: does the fact that most of the cases studied were of the Make It Happen type result from sample composition or is it a general characteristic of intersectoral networks-projects that address living conditions? For example, can housing projects be of the Do It type and, if so, in what context? Our data does not allow us to answer such questions.

Conclusion

Two action strategies of intersectoral networks rooted in civil society were developed through this study (Do It and Make It Happen), depending on whether the networks held the decision-making and levers of action and on the commitment by public authorities to improve living conditions. Such action strategies call for advanced forms of collaboration, notably with municipal authorities. The Make It Happen strategy indicates that networks tended to obtain recognition from municipal authorities and make progress in achieving their goals only after these authorities had acknowledged a long chain of earlier actions. This new knowledge offers a point of reference for practitioners and decision-makers working in fields of public health and social development in guiding decisions for more effective intersectoral action.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2023.2260936.

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research [153093].