**1. Introduction**

Contemporary research shows that humanity is facing daunting environmental challenges that are increasingly dynamic and complex [1,2]. The past century has seen drastic changes in social structures, institutions, relations, and customs. In particular, these changes have defined how societies interact with one another and their ecosystems [3,4]. Ecosystem services play an important role in supporting human life on earth [5–7]. Here, we define ecosystem services as benefits that people obtain from ecosystems [8]. These benefits include food, fresh water, timber, natural medicines, climate regulation, and cultural values, amongs<sup>t</sup> many others [8]. Given the importance of the Earth's ecosystems to human well-being, unsustainable resource consumption and waste have forced us into a new planetary era known as the Anthropocene [1]. This is not surprising considering that the degradation of ecosystem services through human activities is reported to be negatively impacting the coping capacity of at least 3.2 billion people around the world [9]. For example, land degradation decreases the capacity and flow of ecosystem services [10], thereby undermining people's livelihoods [11] and ultimately resulting

in livelihood erosion [12]. Despite accelerated biodiversity loss at both local and regional scales [5], environmental governance continues to be a major challenge [9,10].

There is general agreemen<sup>t</sup> that monocentric governance approaches in addressing environmental problems are inadequate [13]. This has prompted land users and policymakers to consider multi-actor and multi-level partnerships as a way to combat land degradation [14]. Here, multi-actor interactions are described as horizontal connections that link actors across a single organisation level, while multi-level interactions are vertical connections that link actors across multiple organisational levels [15]. For this paper, actors are groups or individuals that have a stake, right, or interest in land degradation and land rehabilitation initiatives [16]. These actors include natural resource users, grassroots organisations (hubs), governmen<sup>t</sup> agencies, and research institutions.

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) reports that land degradation can be addressed through multi-actor participation and dialogue that recognises the importance of knowledge co-production [9]. Multi-actor forums (multi-stakeholder forums) play a pivotal role in bringing together actors from di fferent interest groups to have dialogues, share challenges, address complex problems, and develop policy action [17]. One key principle of multi-actor forums is that they emphasize a democratic approach to reach decisions [18], thereby providing opportunities for representation of various groups drawn from the public, private, and voluntary sectors [17,19]. In recent years, multi-actor forums have received much attention from policymakers and resource users for their potential to address many of the "good" governance principles [18]. Several studies demonstrate the potential of multi-actor forums to address complex environmental challenges pertaining to climate change [20] and land degradation [16,21–23]. In research on land rehabilitation, Zoumides et al. [16] recommended that the sustainability of land rehabilitation initiatives might be achieved by institutionalising multi-actor forums. Such institutionalisation requires new governance structures that overturn the business-as-usual approaches of collaboration and engagement.

In this context, actors face critical questions of how they can contribute towards social-ecological transformations [24]. Here, transformation refers to "fundamental changes in structural, functional, rational and cognitive aspects of socio-technical-ecological systems that lead to new patterns of interactions and outcomes" [25] (p. 2). In other words, transformation refers to the process of profound change that leads to new outcomes or patterns [26–28]. Scoones et al. [29] argued that, in order to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), deliberate normative steering of transformation is necessary at both multi-actor and multi-level scales. Without detailing extensive debates on transformations to sustainability, this article will focus on the changing dynamics of multi-actor and multi-level ties in transformative spaces.

Transformative spaces are defined as "collaborative environments where actors invested in transformations can experiment with new mental models, ideas, and practices that can help shift Social-Ecological Systems (SES) onto alternative paths" [30] (p. 2). It is essential to note that transformative spaces are not transformations, but rather a form of readiness for a system to transform [14]. Put simply, transformative spaces act as starting points for institutional change through various groups drawn from the public, private, and voluntary sectors. They engage in dialogue and collaborative learning while reframing issues in a way that allows solutions [30,31]. In contrast to other participatory research designs that foster multi-actor engagemen<sup>t</sup> [17], transformative spaces are believed to be a promising stepping stone for SES transformations [32] and may lead to social innovation [33]. Here, social innovation is defined as a "process of learning and knowledge creation through which new problems are defined, and new knowledge is developed to solve them" [34] (p. 124).

It is believed that transformative spaces have the potential to enable systemic changes [31,33,35–40]. Here, systemic changes refer to changes that pervade all parts of a system. An example includes the Southern Africa Food Lab case study [33], which illustrates the importance of engaging with multi-actors to respond to systemic challenges. This case study highlights that multi-actor dialogue is a prerequisite for innovative action and for developing new relationships. Other examples include the

involvement of marginalised actors within the formal policy dialogues in developing new opportunities for intervention [36] and the importance of development actors in facilitating meetings that empower women in dealing with cultural barriers [40]. Within such collaborative arrangements, researchers do not perform traditional functions of solely being scientific advisors. Instead, they play an active role as "transformative space-makers" [39]. In this role, researchers play a pivotal role in selecting and organising social actors in transformative spaces while balancing power dynamics [32].

Another critical aspect is that transformative spaces may enable actors to transform adversarial relations and to foster new ways of working together [32]. However, in different circumstances, transformative spaces may 'feel' dangerous [31]. This is evident in the Food Lab case study where power-related tensions among participants created disgruntlement, thus reducing the safety of others [33]. This raises the case of whether transformative spaces are "safe" or "safe enough." Here, "safe" means that transformative change involves learning where actors can freely express their different views [41]. In other words, "safe" involves the concept of "learning, unlearning and relearning." We believe that, for a system to transform, changes might need to happen at a personal level first [32]. Therefore, understanding how actors interact within transformative spaces is critical for enabling or disabling systemic changes; however, the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of these spaces is often ignored [32].

Despite an increase in the number of studies that focus on transformative thinking in the Global South, according to our literature search, no studies have managed to track how collaborative ties change over time within these spaces. Understanding the emerging collaborative ties is critical for tracking network evolution, highlighting the emergence of central and weak actors across and within scales, and comprehending system perceptions that may hinder or enable effective collaboration. Here, we contribute to the literature on transformative spaces and collaborative institutions by exploring the network evolution of the Masibambisane multi-actor forum between 2018 and 2020. Our study seeks to fill the gap in knowledge on how changing ties over time influence the flow of information sharing, inter-organisational trust, and views of shared goals within transformative spaces in South Africa. The case study area chosen for this endeavour is regarded as one of the most degraded areas in South Africa [42] and has dynamic environmental governance systems [43]; therefore, findings may help develop solutions to land degradation issues. By introducing the temporal aspects of how change occurs, we seek to understand the changing dynamics and system perceptions of how actors make decisions within transformative spaces over time.

A social-relational network perspective was applied to identify continuities and/or discontinuities of multi-actor and multi-level connections in transformative space between 2018 and 2020. Here a social-relational network perspective is defined as a set of actors (institutions or hubs) that are connected by a set of social relationships that enables the flow of information, inter-organisational trust, and views of shared interests.

The specific objectives include: (a) to identify what kind of social-relational connections dominated the transformative space between 2018 and 2020; (b) to identify which actors dominate the transformative space; (c) to examine system perceptions, i.e., barriers and enablers; and, (d) to see what strategies can be developed to support the priority needs of the transformative space. This study builds explicitly upon and extends emerging research focusing on transformative spaces as platforms for transformative dialogue, collaboration, and exchange of knowledge between actors that previously did not have dialogues [31,33,39]. This article is organised as follows: in the following section, we outline a brief discussion of the theoretical underpinning; the next section includes a detailed overview of the case study area and an account of the research methods used to answer the key questions; the results section follows, and describes the changing relational pattern of multi-actor ties within the transformative space and actors' perceptions of barriers to effective collaboration and coordination; the paper concludes by discussing the critical implications of the findings.

## **2. Theoretical Background**

#### *Linking Social Capital, Polycentrism, and Social Network Analysis*

Social capital is used to describe personal relationships within networks that help to build trust, norms of reciprocity, and community participation [44]. In other words, social capital is a mechanism by which social relational ties are created among diverse groups, with norms of reciprocity [45]. Social ties are composed of several key components: trust, shared norms, information channels, and authority [46]. One key advantage of examining social capital is that it provides a holistic approach to understanding how cultural, social, and institutional dynamics of communities affect their capacity for dealing with collective action problems [47]. In terms of natural resource governance, social capital is viewed as a critical institutional mechanism that enables collective action and cooperation across scales [47]. In that way, social capital is essential to successful collaboration, learning, sharing of knowledge, and developing new ideas [48]. An example includes the Mexico case study, which illustrates that effective social capital can enhance collaboration among different institutions [49]. Most importantly, trust is viewed as a central linkage between social capital and collective action. Trust is defined as a "particular level of subjective probability with which an actor assesses that another actor will perform a particular action" [50] (p. 217). Put simply, trust enables actors to work together on common issues [44]. By establishing common goals and trust processes, actors may have the potential to transform adversarial relations and to foster new ways of working together across scales [51]. Drawing from social capital theory, we seek to measure the evolving multi-actor and multi-level ties in polycentric governance systems, i.e., their changing shared beliefs, ties of information sharing, and inter-organisational trust over time.

Polycentric governance refers to multiple interacting governing authorities across scales with the autonomy to create and implement rules and guidelines within a specific geography [52,53]. Semi-autonomous governing authorities are often described as overlapping, because they are nested at multiple scales [54]. Overlap may facilitate the flow of information among actors or institutions across scales, thereby enabling knowledge co-production and learning [55]. Here, we define scale as an administrative level to which a specific institutional configuration applies [56]. Therefore, polycentrism involves a combination of various governing authorities drawn from multiple levels (e.g., local, district, provincial, and national) that are not limited to formal governance bodies [54]. The seminal work by Ostrom [57] highlighted that the polycentric governance concept is more flexible than a monocentric one in that, if one governance entity fails, others across scales can step in. In this regard, polycentrism attempts to provide more opportunities for different actors across scales to take responsibilities in initiating and implementing sustainable solutions [58]. For this paper, we are interested in indigenous resource user groups, governmen<sup>t</sup> agencies, and research institutions that are involved in land degradation and land rehabilitation discourse. Given the perennial challenges posed by land degradation to people's livelihoods and the environment, polycentrism is therefore required to enhance effective governance systems [59,60].

Many scholars assert that polycentrism has the potential of enabling collective action in the face of rapid and unpredictable global environmental change [52,58]. Thus, polycentric governance systems are essential for three reasons. First, polycentric systems have a greater capacity to adapt to social-ecological changes than monocentric forms of governance [61,62]. The advantage of institutional diversity is that it enables cross-scale deliberation and learning, which are processes that enhance the adaptive capacity of governance systems [63,64]. By engaging in social learning processes, actors can share information and experiences across scales, while developing new relationships [65]. Furthermore, combining both local and scientific knowledge is essential as it produces more relevant results, compared to using only one of the approaches [66]. The second advantage of polycentricity is that it enables broader levels for participation [19]. It enables diverse actors to dialogue and implements actions to problems they hold in common, thereby enhancing fit [67]. Here, institutional fit refers to a match between an institution and the problem it seeks to address [68]. The third advantage

of polycentric governance systems is that they enhance connectivity, modularity, and functional redundancy that can minimise and correct errors in governance systems [52]. Given the myriad environmental challenges faced by policymakers and land users, functional redundancy is regarded as necessary when an institutional failure occurs [55,63,69]. For example, multi-level governance systems with di fferent political jurisdiction have a higher probability of enhancing connectivity and modularity when governance systems fail or collapse [70]. In other words, the existence of multiple institutions at di fferent levels may help mitigate the risk of institutional failure [70,71].

Social Network Analysis (SNA) is a process commonly used to explore social structures and linkages [15,72,73]. SNA provides methods to quantify relations among actors and resultant network structures [74]. In particular, it enables greater understanding beyond the characteristics of individual actors, thereby allowing an in-depth understanding of actor positions and relations, and how these complex ties impact the network structures [74,75]. As argued by Schoon et al. [72], SNA is an ideal tool to measure the relational pattern of multi-actor ties, evolution, and the emergence of environmental collaborations over time. Social network literature discusses ways in which actors and groups influence each other [15,72,73,76]. For example, actors sharing strong ties tend to influence, trust, and communicate e ffectively with each other more than those sharing weak ties [77]. Actors with stronger ties are more likely to enhance mutual learning and sharing of information resources within the network [77]. Recent studies show that actors who share common values or beliefs communicate easily [77]. Still, such homogeneity, concentration of power, and resultant threat to 'safety' of space can be problematic as transformation requires di fferent views and opinions across scales and within scales.

As highlighted above, social capital is fundamentally about how actors cooperate [47], and this paper focuses on the analysis of social connections in transformative spaces. Given the polycentric relational nature of transformative spaces, SNA o ffers an approach to study the horizontal (multi-actor) and vertical (multi-level) connections between groups across scales. We focus specifically on measuring the evolving multi-actor and multi-level ties in polycentric governance systems, i.e., their changing shared beliefs, ties of information sharing, and inter-organisational trust. Furthermore, we assess the barriers to e ffective collaboration in transformative spaces. In this paper, barriers are obstacles that reduce the e ffectiveness of collaboration and coordination. Based on our literature review, we o ffer two hypotheses:

**Hypothesis 1 (H1).** *Transformative spaces will enable broader levels of participation among actors between and within scales [32].*

**Hypothesis 2 (H2).** *Strong social-relational linkages (i.e., network ties) will increase over time across and within scales.*

## **3. Study Area**

#### *3.1. Overview of Machubeni Communal Land: Setting the Scene*

The Machubeni communal land (31◦3053.92" S; 27◦953.49" E) falls within the Emalahleni Local Municipality of the Chris Hani District in the Eastern Cape, South Africa (Figure 1).

Machubeni also falls under the former Transkei homeland, where land allocation is primarily controlled by both traditional structures and the post-1994 democratic local governance structures, such as the local municipality [10,43]. According to the Emalahleni local municipality, Machubeni is comprised of 13 villages, but the Traditional Leaders Council (TLC) claim that the area is comprised of 17 villages. This contest over ward boundaries was primarily caused by the Municipality Demarcation Board (MDB), which dissolved the spatial layout of the apartheid legacy [78]. The Municipal Demarcation Act No. 27 of 1998 enabled the creation of new municipal areas which were non-racial, but in some cases such as Machubeni, it failed to follow complex social boundaries. This escalated conflicts over land managemen<sup>t</sup> between the traditional authority and the local municipality.

**Figure 1.** Map showing the location of Machubeni communal lands and the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) operational areas.

Most households rely on livestock farming, state social grants, and remittance as their primary sources of income. Livestock farming is a crucial livelihood in the area, comprising approximately one-third of the average household's income [10]. However, overstocking of livestock and weak governance institutions that work in silos have been blamed for the significant soil erosion in the area. Moreover, the culture of collaboration is reported to be ineffective, with little to no sharing of knowledge and learning across actors, sectors, and scales [79,80]. In 2004, the Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism identified Machubeni as one of the most impoverished communities in South Africa [43]. The Machubeni community received over ZAR 7 million from Public Works funding under the Sustainable Land-Based Livelihoods programme to improve the agricultural production system and reverse the process of land degradation. Through this program, the community received specialised training and support in land management; however, the program was characterised by distrust and jealousy among project beneficiaries [80]. The vegetation cover in the region is dominated by *Euryops floribundus* shrub, *Eragrostis trichodes*, and *Eucalyptus saligna* [81]. The mean annual rainfall is 590 mm. The underlying geology of the area consists mainly of sandstones and mudstones. The soils are generally stony and shallow, except in the valley bottoms. The hilly slopes and valley bottoms in the region are affected by sheet and gully erosion which, in turn, has affected both crop and livestock farming [10].

#### *3.2. The Problem Space*

As highlighted above, Machubeni is a highly degraded landscape coupled with disputes over land management, fragmented governance structures, and a lack of collaboration and coordination between actors across scales. The Machubeni landscape has low levels of social capital. To enhance social capital, the Rhodes University GEF5 project team initially designed the Machubeni transformative space, in 2018. This transformative space is expected to run for four years until 2022. The transformative space serves as a platform where actors discuss and "freely think without the weight of disciplinary history or institutional commitments to a given approach that may constrain dialogue, co-create and prepare innovative ideas and innovations" [82] (p. 6035). For this paper, the Machubeni transformative space is also known as the Masibambisane multi-actor forum. Masibambisane means "let us work together" in the isiXhosa language. It is from within this context that we engaged numerous actors across scales in the process of a transformative space, intending to strengthen the ability of local governmen<sup>t</sup>

structures and rural communities to adopt knowledge-based Sustainable Land Management (SLM) for improved functioning of land and ecosystems that are degraded. The transformative space seeks to foster a new culture of collaborative learning, develop new partnerships, and knowledge sharing between multi-actors that had previously not been part of any dialogue (supplementary: Table S1). The Machubeni multi-actor forum is a space where actors learn while attempting to create new relationships that enable SLM. The specific objectives of the transformative space are: to (a) develop strong social connections among actors across and within scales; (b) create new ideas that enable collaboration and knowledge sharing; and, (c) develop institutions that exhibit good institutional fit and functional redundancy.

#### **4. Approach and Methods**

#### *4.1. Criteria for Selecting Actors*

We identified actors that were involved in SLM or environmental governance, or affected by land degradation in Machubeni, by following a two-part stakeholder identification design proposed by Leventon et al. [83]. Firstly, the Rhodes University team conducted an extensive literature search to identify: (a) actors who live in the area (e.g., traditional leaders, natural resource user groups, and ward committees); (b) external actors who have an interest in the managemen<sup>t</sup> and governance of natural resources or work within the specific environment (e.g., researchers and governmen<sup>t</sup> agencies). Sources of literature identified included research articles [10,84,85], dissertations [79], and scientific reports [43,86]. After the extensive review of literature, the research team identified four natural resource user groups and three departments from the local municipality, district municipality, and the provincial government, respectively (supplementary: Table S1). In the second phase, the research team contacted the identified actors. The identified actors were asked to identify other actors who they considered necessary for the transformative space, using a snowball sampling approach [83]. Five new natural resource user groups and three local municipality departments were identified. In total, sixteen semi-autonomous institutions were identified in the governance network, representing a range of administrative levels (Figure 2).

**Figure 2.** Multi-actor and multi-level onion diagram.

Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) workshops are regarded as an essential vehicle for enhancing dialogue among actors from different backgrounds and perspectives [87]. Therefore, a workshop was held in order to organise the multi-actor forum. In order to achieve

the objectives of a transformative space, actors adopted the hub concept. A hub is a group of actors with similar interests, e.g., livestock farmers. Local actors from Machubeni communal lands were organised into seven SLM groups/hubs based on their interests: conservation agriculture hub (CA); land rehabilitation hub (LR); rangeland managemen<sup>t</sup> hub (RG); training and knowledge-sharing hub (TKS); M&E hub (ME); gender equity hub (GE); and the youth hub (YH). These groups are semi-autonomous within the governance networks. After organising the seven SLM Hubs, actors organised a transformative space (multi-actor forum) to enhance partnerships, collaborations, knowledge sharing, transformative institutional change, and mainstreaming of SLM approaches into local governmen<sup>t</sup> policies. Throughout this paper, the SLM hubs represent local organisations.

## *4.2. Data Collection*

We used a mixed-methods approach that included a socio-metric survey [88], Participatory Learning and Action workshops [87], and semi-structured interviews and document review. Data for this study were collected from the Rhodes University GEF5 SLM project between March 2018 and March 2020. A social-relational pattern was applied to detect continuities and/or discontinuities of multi-actor and multi-level actor connections in the transformative space between 2018 and 2020 (2 years). The evolution of the Masibambisane multi-actor forum allows us to: (a) detect the changing social-relational connections over time; and (b) identify how and why these patterns change. To examine the changing dynamics of horizontal and vertical multi-actor ties, social network data were collected using a socio-metric survey [15]. The socio-metric survey was administered through personal interviews, telephone interviews, and emails with SLM hub members, governmen<sup>t</sup> representatives, and Rhodes University researchers. Social-metric data were collected in two phases, (a) July 2019 and (b) February 2020; this allowed us to identify the changing social-relational connections over time. The first author collected data with the aid of a translator. Table 1 shows the characterisation and distribution of organisational actors across and within scales.


**Table 1.** Characterisation and distribution of organisational actors.

Out of 135 actors, 113 managed to complete the socio-metric survey in the first phase. In the repeat survey (phase 2), we interviewed the same actors (n = 103); however, we did not receive responses from the district municipality. This means that our results might be biased towards experiences of more active organisations. The socio-metric survey was divided into three main sections of organisational ties: (a) views of common goals; (b) inter-organisational trust; and (c) information sharing amongs<sup>t</sup> actors. For analytical purposes, actors were asked to list the organisations they cooperated with in their respective networks. Specifically, actors were asked to consider three different types of organisational ties: (a) views of common goals; (b) inter-organisational trust; and, (c) information sharing. Views of common goals are organisational ties concerning mutual interest between and among various organisations within the network. Inter-organisational trust consists in ties concerning the extent to which members of one organisation trust the members of a partner organisation. Information sharing consists in organisational ties concerning the exchange and sharing of land degradation and SLM information among various organisations (e.g., observation of environmental change, rangeland conditions, land rehabilitation, invasive species, conservation agriculture, and bylaws.

After identifying active organisations, actors were asked to measure if they shared information, trusted, or had similar objectives with the identified organisation. Ties resting on the level of inter-organisational trust, the flow of information amongs<sup>t</sup> organisations, and views of common goals were measured using a 5-point Likert test. This process was repeated in the second phase (repeat survey). Semi-structured interviews were used to further explain the changing dynamics emerging from the SNA [77]. Semi-structured interviews (n = 54) were conducted with SLM hubs, governmen<sup>t</sup> agencies, and the research team. Four PLA workshops were held to reflect on the outcomes of the SNA and to identify strategies to overcome barriers to e ffective collaboration and coordination in transformative spaces. Altogether, 50 actors participated in four PLA workshops. Interviews were digitally recorded, and ethical research clearance was obtained from the Rhodes University Ethical Standards Committee (Code: 2019-0658-813). Workshop or attendance registers were used to record and track the regularity of actor participation per workshop. Grey literature accessed from the Emalahleni municipality was triangulated with socio-metric and semi-structured interview data.

#### *4.3. Actor Ties Analysis*

In order to test our two hypotheses, five network metrics were calculated, based on ranked scores elicited directly from participants: in-degree centrality, betweenness centrality, edge density, clustering, and reciprocity. In-degree centrality measures the number of incoming ties received by a node from others [74]. Nodes with high in-degree centrality are considered to be highly connected as they are in contact with many others. Betweenness centrality measures the extent to which a node falls along the shortest path between the various nodes in a network [74]. An actor with the highest betweenness centrality is usually referred to as a gatekeeper or broker [74]. Reciprocity measures the degree of cohesion within networks, while clustering is the average of the densities of the neighbourhoods of all the actors. Put simply, clustering measures "how many of my friends are also friends of themselves" [72] (p. 680). Edge density measures the degree to which the transformative space is cohesive. To assess the strength of the inter-organisational ties within the transformative space, ties were categorised as either weak or strong [15]. Network data were dichotomised three times. First, all ties, both weak and strong, were combined, and any tie greater than 0 became 1 [15]. Second, weak ties were identified as either rarely or occasionally. Here, ties that were equal to 1 and 2 became weak ties. This allowed us to measure and analyse the number of observed weak ties within and between groups. Third, strong ties were identified as either very often or extremely often [15]. Here, ties that were equal to 3 and 4 became strong ties. This then allowed us to measure and analyse the number of observed strong ties within and between groups [15]. This process was done for all three networks.
