**5. Results**

Results from the Machubeni case study are presented here to test our two hypotheses that: (a) transformative spaces will enable broader levels of participation among actors between and within scales (Section 5.1), and (b) strong social-relational linkages (i.e., network ties) will increase over time across and within scales (Sections 5.2–5.4). Results from our two hypotheses will help identify which key barriers and strategies enable effective collaboration and coordination in transformative spaces (Section 5.5).

#### *5.1. Trends in Participation*

Figure 3A,B shows the trend in the number of actors who attend workshop meetings in Machubeni over time. Our results show that the total number of actors who attended workshop meetings steadily increased between Phase 1 and Phase 2 (Figure 3A,B). There was a 134% increase in the total number of actors who attended workshop meetings between Phase 1 and Phase 2 (Figure 3A). In total, 58 members—28 local community members, 18 governmen<sup>t</sup> officials, and 12 researchers—were identified as active members in both phases (Figure 3A). Twelve were based at the local municipality, three at the district level, and six at the province level, indicating that the transformative space was composed of different actors across and within scales (Figure 3B).

**Figure 3.** Trends and changes in the number of workshop attendees over time. (**A**) depicts changes in the total number of attendees and (**B**) depicts changes in the total number of attendees per scale. W represents workshop number.

Network members highlighted that the change of workshop venue led to an increase in attendance (coded 87 times). Provision of transport (coded 89 times) for local hub members to attend workshop meetings was cited as one of the reasons that led to an increase in attendance. Based on interview responses, network members cited environmental reasons for participating in the transformative space including:

"*I joined the transformative space because I would like to help transform the Machubeni landscapes into a better sustainable area. I have realised that land degradation has rapidly increased over the past 60 years. Therefore, its has become a necessity to stop land degradation and bush encroachment which is a*ff*ecting our livelihoods.*"

Others cited cross-scale collaboration as a reason for joining the transformative space (coded 71 times): "*I joined the transformative space because I like the idea of working together. Moreover, the workshop allows us to interact and share knowledge with government o*ffi*cials who hardly visit Machubeni.*"

While the transformative space enabled broader levels of participation in Machubeni, there was a slight decrease in the number of active actors in Phase 2 (Figure 3B). Based on workshop attendance data, there was a high turnover of governmen<sup>t</sup> officials and the youths (Figure 3B). In Phase 2, we observed that district municipality staff and the youths stopped attending the workshop meetings (Figure 3B). High turnover of network members was identified as a major leakage of human capital

(coded 31 times). In terms of youth, the high turnover was due to a disinterest in home gardening and community-based land rehabilitation (coded 24 times).

Further probing revealed that most youth did not aspire to having green jobs. Here, green jobs refers to work related to the conservation of the environment. One youth member suggested that the high turnover was due to the fact that youth anticipated employment opportunities as data enumerators and not as land rehabilitation workers. In some instances, the youths emphasised that the transformative space was not a safe space and their safety was often compromised. As one youth member noted:

"*Whenever we make suggestions during forum meetings, the older participants always interject us. However, we cannot argue with the elders in public because this is against our culture.*"

**Interviewer**: *But the forum is a safe space where all network members are equal?*

**Respondent**: *In principle, it is a safe space, but usually after the workshops, we often get a rebuke from the elders for highlighting divergent points to theirs. This resulted in youths keeping quiet during workshop discussions. "It is better to be safe than sorry."*

Out of the 22 governmen<sup>t</sup> officials identified in Phase 1, 36% represented the public service, while 64% represented the local government. Inclusively, 9% (n = 2) represented senior management, 72% (n = 16) middle management, and 18% (n = 4) junior management. In Phase 2, there was a 12% decline (n = 2) in the number of middle managemen<sup>t</sup> actors. Middle managemen<sup>t</sup> actors interviewed related this 12% turnover rate to being overworked within the district (coded 12 times) and collaboration fatigue (coded 19 times). Figure 4 depicts the changes in the frequency of attendance by governmen<sup>t</sup> actors over time. Further analysis revealed that the attendance ratio of senior managemen<sup>t</sup> actors was highly fluid (Figure 4).

**Figure 4.** Changes in the frequency of attendance by governmen<sup>t</sup> actors over time.

We observed that the frequency of attendance by junior managemen<sup>t</sup> in 2019 steadily increased from 20% to 80% over two years, and this coincided with the rapid decline of senior managemen<sup>t</sup> attendance. Based on interview responses, all senior managemen<sup>t</sup> actors indicated apathy for future collaboration (coded 12 times). As one senior managemen<sup>t</sup> actor articulated:

... *"When the university finally exits the project in 2022, I do not see any senior government actors from District or Provincial level attending forum meetings because it will be the mandate of the local municipality as an implementer to take over* ... *..Our role at the Provincial level is to help with policy interpretation, but if the local municipality is non-functional there is nothing we can do"* ...

Further probing revealed that there were deep structural tensions between the local municipality and the district municipality. One district municipality official highlighted that the Municipal Structure Act of 1998 states that the role of the district municipality is to provide technical assistance to local municipalities, including sharing of specialised capacity. However, local municipality officials emphasised that the idea of shared priorities is an ideal concept on paper, but it is rare in practice, signifying governance mismatches. Overall, edge density, clustering coefficient, and reciprocity scores steadily increased on average over the two phases, despite a decline in the number of active organisations within the polycentric governance network (Figure 5). We observed that the reciprocity score of the inter-organisational trust network increased steeply from 0.33 to 0.85 (Figure 5). This might signify an increase in collaborative cohesion among different actors within the polycentric governance network.

**Figure 5.** Network metrics evolution. (**A**) depicts changes in edge density; (**B**) changes in average clustering; (**C**) changes in reciprocity; and (**D**) changes in average betweenness. CG (Common Goals network), IS (Information-Sharing network) and IT (Inter-organisational trust network).

Furthermore, 90% of the respondents reported that the transformative space demonstrated strong cohesion (e.g., "*The transformative space discussions have enabled us to form new bonds and build strong relationships with other villages and government actors. Furthermore, I have realised that by working together as di*ff*erent villages, government departments and researchers, we can arrest land degradation because we all bring di*ff*erent strengths. For example, Rhodes University is glueing us together, the government*

*departments are providing technical support, and the community is providing the energy to rehabilitate the land*"). The social facilitation process enabled attitudinal changes: network members generated a "together-we-can" mentality. We observed an increase in edge density, as well as clustering and reciprocity within the network (Figure 5). The increase of these metrics scores over time suggests that there is an increase in cooperation and knowledge sharing among di fferent semi-autonomous institutions within the polycentric governance network. While there is an increase in network density, clustering coe fficient, and reciprocity, the average betweenness steeply declined over time (Figure 5, supplementary: Tables S2–S5).

Most importantly, we observed that the overall number of strong ties increased on average, while the number of weak ties decreased over time (Figure 6). The changes in the proportion of direct ties observed within respective governance networks in Machubeni ranged widely, with the common goals network having an increase of 6%, information-sharing network 25%, and inter-organisational trust network 33%. Furthermore, the proportion of strong ties steadily increased, with the common goals network having an increase of 66%, information-sharing network 29%, and inter-organisational trust network 17%. In terms of multi-actor ties, strong linkages were prevalent between local–local hubs, while weak vertical ties were prevalent between the local hubs and the local municipality (Figure 6). Overall, the proportion of strong ties between the university and the governmen<sup>t</sup> departments remained stable over time across three networks (Figure 6).

**Figure 6.** Distribution of multi-actor and multi-level ties across three networks. ( **A**) depicts the distribution of ties across three governance networks, i.e., IT (inter-organisational trust network), IS (information-sharing network), and CG (Common goals network) between Phase 1 and Phase 2. (**B**), ( **C**) and ( **D**) depict the distribution of strong versus weak ties across three governance networks (common goals, information sharing, and inter-organisational trust networks). LC (Local hubs), LM (Local municipality), GV (Government), RU (Rhodes University).

#### *5.2. Evolution and Description of the Common Goals Network over Time*

Our analysis revealed that the distribution of strong ties increased among actors and across scales over time (Figure 6). Semi-structured interviews revealed four processes that contributed to the increase of strong ties among local–local hubs over time. Network members highlighted that enhanced social facilitation (coded 43 times), personal relationships (coded 21 times), behavioural change (coded 13 times), and personal learning (coded nine times) were related to the increase of strong ties within the network over time. Network members elucidated that social facilitation enabled members to develop shared goals, thereby enhancing relational and collective agency. Most importantly, ties among local–local hubs were mostly strong with like-minded organisations such as CA, LR, and RG closely connected in both phases (Figure 7) because of personal connections, with one hub leader suggesting that "*over the past two years we have enjoyed working together as local organisations, and we have become stronger together.*"

3KDVH 0DUFK±)HEUXDU\ 

3KDVH 0DUFK±)HEUXDU\

**Figure 7.** Overview of the common goals network. Arrows represent directed, weighted ties and circle size represents degree centrality. Rhodes University (RU), Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs, and Tourism (DEDEAT), Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform (DRDAR), Chris Hani District Municipality (CHDM), Emalahleni Local Municipality (ELM), Traditional Leaders Council (TLC), Masibambisane multi-actor forum executive (MMF exe), GEF5 Community liaison officers (CLO), Conservation Agriculture Hub (CA), Land Rehabilitation Hub (LR), Rangeland Management Hub (RG), Training and Knowledge Hub (TK), M&E Hub (M&E), Gender Equity Hub (GE), and Youth Hub (YH).

Our data reveal that the local municipality was the least connected organisation across and within scales in both phases (Figure 7). Further probing revealed that municipal officials were hesitant in aligning their goals with the rest of the network because of limited resources for service delivery (coded 13 times) and a lack of clearly outlined rules of engagemen<sup>t</sup> between local municipalities and civil society (coded eight times). An ex-municipal employee elucidated that most municipal extension officers who attend the forum meetings were mere 'pen-pushers' with little or no authority to make decisions that enable institutional transformations.

#### *5.3. Evolution and Description of the Information-Sharing Network over Time*

Our analysis revealed that the distribution of strong ties increased between actors and across scales over time (Figure 6). In Phase 1, we observed that Rhodes University was the most central and dominating actor (Figure 8). However, in Phase 2, five organisations were identified as central in the information-sharing network. Based on interview responses, network members linked this to an increase of cross-scale coordination meetings, i.e., Intergovernmental Relations (IGR). Both the Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs, and Tourism and Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform were seen as central governmen<sup>t</sup> agencies that shared technical information within the transformative space. However, network members reported weak ties between local organisations and the local municipality in both phases (Figure 6).


**Figure 8.** Overview of the information-sharing network. Arrows represent directed, weighted ties and circle size represents degree centrality. Rhodes University (RU), Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs, and Tourism (DEDEAT), Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform (DRDAR), Chris Hani District Municipality (CHDM), Emalahleni Local Municipality (ELM), Traditional Leaders Council (TLC), Masibambisane multi-actor forum executive (MMF exe), GEF5 Community liaison officers (CLO), Conservation Agriculture Hub (CA), Land Rehabilitation Hub (LR), Rangeland Management Hub (RG), Training and Knowledge Hub (TK), M&E Hub (M&E), Gender Equity Hub (GE), and Youth Hub (YH).

Document analysis of grey literature from the Emalahleni municipality revealed that the local municipality did not have adequate scientific information to share with local communities concerning land degradation and rangelands. Further probing revealed that a lack of resource planners at the local municipality level, such as soil scientists, pasture scientists, and natural scientists, created communication barriers. Network members interviewed elucidated that political instability (coded nine times), high-level leadership instability (coded four times), deep structural tensions (coded eight times), and discontinuous participation by senior municipality officials (coded 48 times) from the local municipality impeded effective communication within the transformative space across scales. Despite most organisations and hubs having some informational ties in both phases, there were no informational ties reported for the district municipality in Phase 2. Two potential explanations for this emerged from interviews with district municipality officials, who highlighted that the participatory process was time-consuming considering that the transformative space focused on five villages within the district. Another reason might be insufficient budgets from the district municipality to fulfil demands of the transformative space, thereby resulting in self-exclusion, e.g., "*the district municipality is financially constrained, and we support six local municipalities, it will be di*ffi*cult to commit to knowledge sharing activities.*"

#### *5.4. Evolution and Description of the Inter-Organisational Trust Network over Time*

Our analysis revealed that the distribution of strong ties increased between actors and across scales over time (Figure 6). Figure 9 depicts the overview of the Inter-organisational trust network over time. Although there was an increase in strong ties between local–local hubs, mistrust between the Traditional Leaders Council and the MMF executive was becoming more apparent. The MMF executive was accused of "capturing" the project and directing all project benefits to their cronies (coded 34 times). As one of the headmen stated:

"*We are the custodians of this community, MMF executive is distributing lucerne seedlings without our blessings. What criteria did they use to distribute the seeds? As the headman, I am the father of the five villages, and I will never let anyone divide my community. Therefore, the selection criteria should include all local semi-autonomous hub leaders.*"

**Figure 9.** Overview of the Inter-organisational trust network. Arrows represent directed, weighted ties, and circle size represents degree centrality. Rhodes University (RU), Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs, and Tourism (DEDEAT), Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform (DRDAR), Chris Hani District Municipality (CHDM), Emalahleni Local Municipality (ELM), Traditional Leaders Council (TLC), Masibambisane multi-actor forum executive (MMF exe), GEF5 Community liaison officers (CLO), Conservation Agriculture Hub (CA), Land Rehabilitation Hub (LR), Rangeland Management Hub (RG), Training and Knowledge Hub (TK), M&E Hub (M&E), Gender Equity Hub (GE), and Youth Hub (YH).

However, the MMF responded by highlighting that:

"*when making decisions, we include the two headmen and their seven sub-headmen. However, when a headman misses an important meeting, it is the responsibility of the sub-headman to inform their headman.*"

Further probing revealed that some of the tensions emanated from unclear communication channels among the multiple semi-autonomous institutions at the local level. Other network members highlighted that the diminishing legitimacy of traditional leaders, due to multiple independent institutions, created tensions within the transformative space (coded eight times). Further analysis revealed that there were more strong ties among different hubs and the MMF executive than with the Traditional Leaders Council.
