Abstract:Abstract“Action situations”—events, venues, or physically interdependent instances of decision-making—have become a central unit of analysis in the social–environmental sciences, particularly among scholars interested in bridging the social with the biophysical or ecological side of interdependent decisions. A growing body of empirical studies in social–ecological systems research has recently used case and comparative studies to analyse multiple interdependent action situations, structured into networks. In t… Show more
“…The network of action situations approach continues to be of value in understanding polycentric system configurations and actor interactions (Carlisle and Gruby 2019 ; Kimmich et al 2022 ), or more broadly, how sets of institutions interact and co-shape each other in environmental governance (Partelow et al 2020 ). However, while detailed and descriptive in decomposing the constituent parts of governance, it can miss the spaces in between where experienced reality exists and drives behavior combining rules, norms and rationalism and while recognizing influences beyond these factors.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1 ), which has already been demonstrated in a rich body of literature (McGinnis 2011a ; Ostrom 2011 ; Kimmich 2013 ; Lubell 2013 ; Villamayor-Tomas et al 2015 ; Oberlack et al 2018 ; Berardo and Lubell 2019 ; Möck et al 2019 ). A comprehensive and recent review of the literature has been undertaken by Kimmich et al ( 2022 ) for this Special Issue. Fig.…”
The concept of commoning is continuing to gain scholarly interest, with multiple definitions and interpretations across different research communities. In this article, we define commoning as the actions by groups with shared interests towards creating shared social and relational processes as the basis of governance strategy. Perhaps it can be more simply defined as collective ways of relating and governing. This article addresses two specific gaps in the commoning literature: (1) to bridge disparate strands of literature on commoning by briefly reviewing each and arguing for integration through epistemic pluralism, and (2) to explicitly examine how power is manifest in commoning processes by bringing in a framework on power (i.e., power over, power with, power to, power within) to understand the links between power and commoning governance processes in two case studies. The two cases are tourism governance on Gili Trawangan, Indonesia and aquatic food production systems in Bulacan, Philippines. We preface this analysis with the argument that power is an integral part of the commoning concept, but that it has yet to be analytically integrated to applications of the broader institutional analysis and development framework or within the networks of action situations approach. We argue that by making explicit how an analysis of power can be coupled to a network of action situations analysis in a qualitative way, we are advancing a key feature of the commoning concept, which we introduce as rooted in epistemic and analytical pluralism in the analysis of governance. In the discussion, we expand on how each case study reveals each of the four power dynamics, and how they improve the understanding of commoning as a pluralistic and perhaps bridging analytical concept.
“…The network of action situations approach continues to be of value in understanding polycentric system configurations and actor interactions (Carlisle and Gruby 2019 ; Kimmich et al 2022 ), or more broadly, how sets of institutions interact and co-shape each other in environmental governance (Partelow et al 2020 ). However, while detailed and descriptive in decomposing the constituent parts of governance, it can miss the spaces in between where experienced reality exists and drives behavior combining rules, norms and rationalism and while recognizing influences beyond these factors.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1 ), which has already been demonstrated in a rich body of literature (McGinnis 2011a ; Ostrom 2011 ; Kimmich 2013 ; Lubell 2013 ; Villamayor-Tomas et al 2015 ; Oberlack et al 2018 ; Berardo and Lubell 2019 ; Möck et al 2019 ). A comprehensive and recent review of the literature has been undertaken by Kimmich et al ( 2022 ) for this Special Issue. Fig.…”
The concept of commoning is continuing to gain scholarly interest, with multiple definitions and interpretations across different research communities. In this article, we define commoning as the actions by groups with shared interests towards creating shared social and relational processes as the basis of governance strategy. Perhaps it can be more simply defined as collective ways of relating and governing. This article addresses two specific gaps in the commoning literature: (1) to bridge disparate strands of literature on commoning by briefly reviewing each and arguing for integration through epistemic pluralism, and (2) to explicitly examine how power is manifest in commoning processes by bringing in a framework on power (i.e., power over, power with, power to, power within) to understand the links between power and commoning governance processes in two case studies. The two cases are tourism governance on Gili Trawangan, Indonesia and aquatic food production systems in Bulacan, Philippines. We preface this analysis with the argument that power is an integral part of the commoning concept, but that it has yet to be analytically integrated to applications of the broader institutional analysis and development framework or within the networks of action situations approach. We argue that by making explicit how an analysis of power can be coupled to a network of action situations analysis in a qualitative way, we are advancing a key feature of the commoning concept, which we introduce as rooted in epistemic and analytical pluralism in the analysis of governance. In the discussion, we expand on how each case study reveals each of the four power dynamics, and how they improve the understanding of commoning as a pluralistic and perhaps bridging analytical concept.
“…Steins and Edwards 1999;Tribaldos et al 2020), insights from these two streams of research have remained largely disconnected. In this paper, through a comparative analysis of two similar participatory interventions, we show how combining the institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework (Ostrom 2005(Ostrom , 2011, the network of (adjacent) action situation (NAS) framework (McGinnis 2011a;Kimmich et al 2022) and the social-ecological system (SES) framework (Ostrom 2009;McGinnis and Ostrom 2014) with central concepts of participatory governance (e.g. Fung 2006;Newig et al 2018;Reed et al 2018) provides fruitful ways to integrate these insights and apply them to the design and analysis of participatory interventions.…”
Section: Network Of Action Situations In Social-ecological Systems Re...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Acknowledging that actors interact in several interlinked action spaces, the NAS framework helps to organise the analysis of all adjacent and distant ASs that jointly produce specific sustainability and equity outcomes in complex SES that are sometimes separate yet interconnected (e.g. McGinnis 2011a; Kimmich et al 2022). It helps operationalise individual and collective decision-making processes as networks of simultaneously or sequentially interlinked ASs.…”
Section: Network Of Action Situations In Social-ecological Systems Re...mentioning
Overcoming complex environmental challenges demands different forms of stakeholder participation and collective action. While informative and relevant for participatory interventions, the literatures on collective action and participatory governance have largely remained disconnected. We illustrate how the institutional analysis and development (IAD), network of (adjacent) action situation (NAS) and social–ecological system (SES) frameworks can be combined to provide a coherent approach that integrates these literatures, applies their insights and bridges this disconnect. We compare two similar participatory interventions, one in Colombia and one in Peru, whose design and implementation we supported. Transdisciplinary in nature, both sought to foster collective action for watershed management. The frameworks allow us to demarcate, characterise and reflect upon the action situations (ASs) for the collective choice, coordination and knowledge generation that constituted each participatory intervention (i.e. the constituent NAS) and other relevant operational and institutional ASs that lay outside the boundaries of the participatory interventions. These other ASs may not be linked to one another or to the intervention’s constituent NAS, but they influence the outcomes of interest nevertheless, thereby shaping the potential of the participatory interventions for collective action and sustainable natural resource management. The framework then suggests, and our comparative analysis illustrates, that organisers and researchers of participatory interventions, such as multi-actor deliberative platforms and transdisciplinary research projects, should carefully consider, reflect upon and address the constellation of relevant actors, ASs and contexts co-determining the outcomes of interest. Our study demonstrates how the IAD, SES and NAS frameworks can support that endeavour.
“…This paper fills this gap by conceptualising a WEF nexus case with the Networks of Action Situations (NAS) approach (McGinnis 2011b; Kimmich et al 2022) combined with systems thinking (Meadows and Wright 2011). The NAS approach postulates that "actorsʼ decisions depend on the institutional structure of a particular situation and the decisions made in related situations" (Villamayor-Tomas et al 2015, p. 735).…”
In the twenty-first century, the world´s demand for natural resources is more pressing and deeply interconnected than ever before. The Water-Energy-Food (WEF) nexus has gained growing interest as a promising concept for complex resource management challenges. However, knowledge about the root causes of cross-sectoral coordination problems and how they can be shifted towards sustainability is still lacking. This paper fills this gap by conceptualising a WEF nexus case with the Networks of Action Situations approach combined with systems thinking. This approach allows a deep analysis of the root causes of coordination gaps, facilitates a joint understanding of the system dynamics to identify leverage points for shifting the WEF nexus towards sustainability, and to envision the impact of potential interventions on the network of action situations and their outcome. The value and the reciprocal benefits of the combined approach introduced are illustrated for a case in Switzerland, Europe. The results show a coordination gap between the different sectors and that not all sectors were considered equally. This leads to a prioritization of energy production over water-bound biodiversity and food production. The root causes for this outcome are a focus to mitigate climate change and awareness of biodiversity but much less awareness of the impacts of climate change on Swiss water bodies. The study identifies five deep leverage points for interventions, which are expected to ensure a shared systemic problem understanding and more balanced coordination between different sectors resulting in the sustainable and equitable provision and utilization of WEF resources.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
