Growing together – How institutional structures influence communal agricultural prosumption types and their potential for continuity

Communal agricultural prosumption (CAP), the practice of producing food for one's own consumption within a communal organisation is becoming more prominent in everyday life. Although there has been ample descriptive research on specific CAP types, there is a lack of a comprehensive overview of the similarities and differences in terms of the structures, rules and continuity of CAP types. Therefore, we exploratively compare three Swiss CAP types: allotment gardens (AGs), community gardens (CGs) and community supported agriculture (CSA). We collect data using qualitative Grounded Theory approach and rely on institutional theory to characterise the CAP types' institutional structures, rules and their potential in terms of continuity, as well as their perceived outcome on society. The results show similarities and differences in the perceived outcomes of these types, as well as in their individual requirements, institutional structures and socio-political agendas. Community-centred types, such as CSAs and CGs, successfully generate political agency and collective structures, yet financial barriers limit broader participation. In contrast, individual-centred types, such as AGs, provide autonomy, but impose high knowledge requirements and lack strong political leverage, which poses crucial challenges for long-term viability. To ensure the continuity of all three CAP types, we propose targeted policy and institutional strategies that enhance accessibility, reinforce inter-institutional networks, and align CAP governance with broader sustainability goals. • Allotment gardens have regulative structures and can face continuity challenges. • Community gardens have normative structures with communal values. • Community-supported agriculture groups integrate cultural norms with political agenda. • Inter-institutional networks are important to ensure continuity of CAP organisations.