**7. Conclusions**

Our results support the two hypotheses: that transformative spaces enable broader levels of participation among actors between and within scales and, secondly, that strong social-relational linkages (i.e., network ties) increased over time across and within scales. With regard to the first hypothesis, this paper has highlighted the implications of polycentrism in enabling broader levels of participation, cross-scale collaboration, and learning in transformative spaces. Despite the findings highlighting the potential role of transformative spaces in ensuring broader levels of participation, ine ffective communication channels at the local level caused tensions among the semi-autonomous hubs. This suggests that polycentric governance networks might present specific challenges. We identified leadership training and capacity development of traditional leaders and hub leaders, e.g., conflict resolution training, as necessities to enhance e ffective collaboration and coordination.

The findings from this study illustrate the importance of employing a social-relational perspective in analysing changing social connections and relationships in transformative spaces. We observed that actors with strong ties of trust also possessed similar strong ties of information sharing within the network. In particular, inter-organisational trust played an essential role in enhancing knowledge sharing and coordination. We found that learning is a critical prerequisite for finding solutions to address structural dimensions within a transformative space over time. Network members identified strategies to strengthen collaboration and coordination in transformative spaces through learning. While the transformative space in Machubeni has succeeded in enhancing collaboration and knowledge sharing between groups that did not previously dialogue, further long-term engagemen<sup>t</sup> with governmen<sup>t</sup> agencies might be necessary for promoting institutional transformations and policy outcomes, and building network resilience in complex polycentric governance systems.

**Supplementary Materials:** The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/7/227/s1, Table S1: Design principles, interpretations, application in the Machubeni Case Study; Table S2: Actor groups identified as members of the transformative space (Masibambisane multi-actor Forum); Table S3: Centrality measures i.e., in-degree and betweenness over time (common goals); Table S4: Centrality measures i.e., in-degree and betweenness over time (information-sharing network); Table S5: Centrality measures i.e., in-degree and betweenness over time (Inter-organisational trust network).

**Author Contributions:** M.F.; J.G. and M.S. conceived and designed the study; M.F. undertook the field work and data analysis under the guidance of J.G. and M.S. who are both his PhD supervisors; M.F. wrote the paper with support from both J.G. and M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This work was funded by the Rhodes University GEF5 SLM Project (Project ID: 00095288).

**Acknowledgments:** The authors would like to acknowledge the generosity of residents from Machubeni communities and governmen<sup>t</sup> sectorial actors for participating in this research. Menelisi Falayi would like to acknowledge the Oppenheimer Memorial Trust (OMT REF: 21250/01) for providing additional financial assistance. The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewers who helped us improve our manuscript.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflicting interests.
