Week 5 & 6 Flashcards
What are ecosystem functions?
Ecosystem functioning reflects the collective activities of organisms (plants, animals, etc.) and their effects (e.g., feeding, growing, moving, excreting waste) on the physical and chemical conditions of their environment.
What are ecosystem services?
Ecosystem services are ecosystem functions that provide goods and services that satisfy human needs, either directly or indirectly.
Definition of ecosystem services according to TEEB?
The definitions of ecosystem services reflect their purpose:
“The (in)direct contribution to human well-being”
What are some examples of indicators that give information on the flow of ecosystem services?
- the species richness of a grassland
- photosynthesis rate of an ecosystem
True or false:
Institutional change is easy and helps actors find optimal solutions to biodiversity problems
False.
Actors often seek good enough rather than optimal solutions because of their imperfect mental models and the high cost of achieving institutional change.
True or false:
A difference between collaborative governance and policy networks is that collaborative governance draws upon explicit and formal strategies in decision-making processes, while policy networks may also operate in informal ways.
True
The panacea problem of common pool resource management refers to….?
Prescribing blueprint institutional solutions across common pool resources
Pollination and carbon sequestration are both examples of what?
Regulating ecosystem services
Which type of network structure is appropriate when there is a high degree of trust between partners and the level of goal consensus is high?
A shared-governance network
According to the IUCN, what is the definition of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS)?
Actions to protect, (..) manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems, addressing societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits.
In the social network diagram below what role does the actor labeled Crd1 have in this network and why?
Crd1 is a broker in the network given that they have a bridging role in connecting spatial planning groups with nature and flood protection actors. It is characterized by having a high degree centrality.
What could be two examples of the ecological characteristics that are key when evaluating the nature-based solution ‘dealing with high rainfall intensity’?
1) Canopy cover of the vegetation
2) Permeability of the soil
ES Framework - Cascade Model
- ecosystem is regarded in an abstract way
- ecosystems have properties & these properties underlie capacity
- capacity is the ‘stock’ that can be used for services, e.g., a tree’s capacity to be cut down > that’s the service it provides (also carbon sequestration)
- services are linked to benefits & benefits provide value
- values: provide directions in which actors would like to move (values are very actor- and objective-oriented)
- Valuation (in economics): understanding of the worth or importance of something
» There can be economic, socio-cultural, ecological values
» ‘economic’ isn’t necessarily the same as ‘valuation’, and ‘valuation’ doesn’t necessarily = monetary valuation alone (economic valuation of nature also includes intrinsic values)
What are provisioning services?
Products, goods obtained from nature; are the ones being extracted, removed from a system ie. have consequences on a system & how it should be managed
» e.g. food, water, fibre, biochemicals
What are regulating services?
Regulation of ecosystem processes; relates more strongly to ecosystem functions & biodiversity
e.g. climate regulation, pollination, disease regulation.
What are cultural services?
Relates to non-material benefits (for well-being), difficult to quantify, ‘fluffy one’ e.g. spiritual, aesthetic, recreation, tourism, educational, cultural heritage.
6 most imp lessons from Ruckelhaus et al. (2015) paper?
- iterative science policy process
- building trust among all stakeholders - don’t be afraid to simplify
- show changes in ES through decisions - empower local experts — on-going learning
- it’s not always about the money
-monetary benefits are rarely what’s needed - relate BES to livelihoods & other wellbeing
- report uncertainty
-continue relationship of trust
→ think, so when does (sustainability) info speak to decision makers? what is a good indicator?
- the role of information: 1) credibility, 2) salience: relevance to decision makers, and 3) legitimacy: meaningful, inclusive process
What are indicators of ES?
- indicators = variables which present information of relevance to decision-makers and that have a logical connection to the object or process being measured (Ash 2010)
- w/ indicators, policymakers can base decisions on evidence & track progress toward goals
Stock or state indicators–what does this mean?
- Essentially ecological indicators
» Information on ecosystem functions
» What is at stake (or in stock) - Actual vs. potential provision
» Sustainability notion - Decision/policy relevant
» Consequences of choices, trade-offs
State, flow, well-being, etc indicators examples (hint: think of the excel exercise)
Ecosystem services: flow
- “Contribution to human wellbeing”
- Flow indicators (performance, outcome)
- Actual use, flow, contribution, extraction
In regard to ES indicators, what do we mean when we talk about scientific credibility?
- Valid, unambiguous
- Backed by experts
- Backed by scientific literature
- Be embedded in a framework
- Quantifiable (if needed)
In regard to ES indicators, what do we mean when we talk about salience (useful, relevant)?
- Indicators are salient if they are relevant to the involved stakeholder
- Clear, understandable (not hyper scientific for example)
- Generate action through the information they provide
- Monitor change
» See progress, relatable to drivers / policies - Scalable (does not always apply)
- Transferable (widely applicable)
» Example: can the same indicator be used e.g., in Paris and also in NY? (transferability)
In regard to ES indicators, what do we mean when we talk about legitimacy (meaningful, inclusive process)?
- Selected through inclusive process
- Widely accepted (or will a certain formulation cause offensive reaction? E.g., use “resource extraction” instead of deforestation rate because Brazil might get offended)
- Non-offensive interpretation
- Legitimacy is also an approach that:
» incorporates all relevant disciplines
» recognizes and respects the contribution of indigenous and local knowledge to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems
How are collaborative and network governance similar?
1) Address collaborations across organizational boundaries
2) Promise or expect better coordination between different organizations, authorities > will lead to more integrated management and policy solutions
3) Assume a shift from state-centered, hierarchical top-down government towards less formalized governance by networks of interdependent stakeholders that extend beyond the government sector
» Both depart from the trend of the hollowing out of the state to a less formalized governance that doesn’t only include the public sector, but also non-public organizations as well
4) Both emphasize collective decision-making process for public services delivery (e.g., nature protection) that are based on trust, power-sharing, diversity in the decision-making actors, consensus, inclusiveness, deliberativeness, egalitarian
How are collab and network governance different?
- collab: focus on the basic protocols and ground rules for collaboration
» how we make the decisions in the collaborative process (e.g., is it going to be a majority vote, consensus-based…)
» focuses on the rules (=> how do we collaborate?) - network: focus on network structures that can be found in collaborative processes.
» such as, how the organizations or the actors within a network relate to one another, who has the coordinating role within the network (who facilitates collaboration?).
» focuses on the structure of the different relationships and ties between the actors
Why focus on network structure?
- In networks, we see less hierarchical steering (who’s in charge?)
- Networks usually consist of horizontal ties: networks have limited formal accountability and conformity to rules (participation) is voluntary
- The structure of a network impacts its performance (depending on its structure, we can have better or not collaboration)
What are the 3 dimensions of networks?
1) Goal-directed vs. serendipitous networks
2) Brokered vs. non-brokered networks
3) Participant vs. externally governed
Goal-directed vs. serendipitous networks?
- Goal direction = established for a specific purpose
- Consist of organizations with a common goal they’re trying to achieve
- Such networks can be self-initiated or mandated by government
- Serendipitous networks = emergent types of networks
- Informal or incidental
- As an organization is trying to pursue their own interests, they may find other organizations with similar or opposing interests > this can lead to new networks being developed
Brokered vs. non-brokered networks?
Brokered
* Different participants in the network don’t have ties with each other, but rather with a single organization or an actor
» Interactions via a central broker
Non-brokered networks (shared networks)
* Each participant has ties and interact with each other directly
» Direct interactions with other organizations or actors in the network
* Very dense or decentralized kind of network
* This dimension has an impact on how collaborations occur
* Requires different coordinating mechanisms (between brokered and non-brokered networks)
Participant vs externally governed
Participant = Networks are governed fully by the organization or actors within the network and who have a stake in the network
Externally governed = Network is governed by an external, neutral organization
What are the three types of network structures?
1) Participant governed
2) Lead organization network
3) Network Administrative Organization (NAO)
Participant governed network?
- Network members govern the network themselves (formally or informally)
- (De)centralized decision-making
» There isn’t one organization which is the lead in deciding or coordinating the efforts - No distinct administrative / coordinative body
» Involves most or all the network members interacting on an equal basis of governance
Lead organization?
- One member org that coordinates network level activities and decisions (usually a gov org, or most powerful actor in the network)
- Highly centralized and brokered
- Such a network is helpful when there are asymmetrical power relationships in the network or power imbalances in the members
- Lead org can emerge or be mandated
- They have resources/influence
Network Administrative Organization (NAO)?
- Separate (external) admin entity set up to govern the network and its activities
» NOT a member or participant (they have no interest in the network apart from coordinating it) - brokered network
- can be relatively small
- usually set up and run by gov
Effective network governance: characterisitcs of the network
- To what extent there is consensus between network participants
» Do they have a shared interest or common goal?
» How do they plan on achieving that goal? - Mutual trust
- Types of tasks of the network
- Size of the network
Effective network governance: characteristics of the environment
- Available resources to manage the network
- Stability of the environment
- Is there extenal control of the network?
Key predictors of which network elements should be applied in different contexts
- Shared (participant) governance network (=> when participants increase, trust can decrease)
» High trust
» Few members
» Suited for situations where the goal consensus is high (good agreement about what the common goal should be)
» Low need for network competencies - Lead organization
» When there is low trust (highly centralized) - Network administrative organization
» When there is a need for a neutral body to participate in governing the network (this can help make the network more inclusive)
» Thus, need for high network-level competencies to be able to govern such a network
What is the Social Network Analysis used for?
It helps us analyze networks, the members of the networks, and the relationships between them
What is the value of the Social Network Analysis?
- Focus: on the relations between participants in a network (business relations, social interactions etc.)
- Analyzes positions & strength of connections
- It helps to interpret structures & behaviors within the network
» Network structure influences behavior - Interactions are embedded structurally: through trust, knowledge & social mechanisms e.g., mutually agreed upon rules through which the network operates
- Interactions are also relationally embedded: the function of a network is motivated by long-term cooperative interests
What are the metrics to analyze SNA?
Actors, groups, and networks
In regard to SNA, what are actor metrics?
Actor centrality => how central an actor is within a network
- Indicator of power or influence in a network
- Being central is overall a good thing
actor metrics: degree, directed of undirected ties, in-degree, and out-degree
- Degree = number of ties that actor ‘x’ has (here, degree = 2)
- Directed of undirected ties
They are going from one actor to another
Undirected: the relationship goes both ways - In-degree = number of actors that have a directed tie towards actor ‘x’ (here, indegree = 2)
- Out-degree = number of actors towards which actor ‘x’ has a directed tie (here, out-degree = 3)
Actor metrics cont.
- Centrality apart from the actor degrees: betweeness vs closeness
Centrality has various other operationalizations than sheer degree:
- Betweenness
» How often actor ‘x’ find themselves in-between two other actors (shows us the shortest way between any two actors in a network can go through to reach their focal actor)
» Focused on central actors and the role they play in connecting everyone - Closeness
» How easily actor ‘x’ can reach everybody else
» Expresses the average distance or hops that an actor needs to reach another actor in a network
What are the two network metrics?
Centrality = Graph is organized around its more central actor (s)
Density = characterized by the number of ties in the network or group divided by the maximum number of ties possible
Network connections: Strong & weak ties
Strong ties = strengthen the embeddedness/ stability of actors
Weak ties = enables actors to reach outside their usual networks & build social capital (-> useful when the network is faced with a new task or challenge)
Network connections: Structural Holes
- Actors who are unconnected, can create holes within a network
- Actors connect two otherwise unconnected networks
- Important bridges of information/ ideas
- Role as gatekeepers
- The extent to which you ‘fill’ a gap between subgroups
Applications of SNA to biodiversity governance:
Paper by Ernston et al looked at urban ecosystem services in Stockholm
- Purpose was to look at social networks in context of ecosystem governance.
- Recognizing changing in ecosystem dynamics require actors at different scales.
- They study demonstrated that in Stockholm the green areas are very different thus required a type of governance for that special structure.
- They identified scale mismatched between ecosystems and government processes to deal with them.
- They also highlighted the need for cross-scale brokers, connecting different scales 🡺 thus they proposed have such brokers to solve mismatches between social and ecological processes.
Nature-based solutions
- Are interventions that address social, economic and environmental sustainability issues simultaneously.
- There isn’t a single interpretation, rather NBS is an umbrella concept
- NBS is different from EBA (ecosystem-based adaptation) and GI (Green infrastructures):
» It incorporates a broader array of interventions and a broader range of perspectives on what qualifies as ‘nature-based’
» It is most explicitly oriented towards providing solutions to complex challenges.
» NB: The three concepts vary regarding perspectives on what qualifies as ‘nature’, and related to that, around what qualifies as a nature-based intervention. - As an umbrella concept, NBS offers the potential to connect currently segregated bodies of knowledge and expertise generated from approaches to urban green planning.
What is an example of when an NBS doesn’t have a positive outcome?
Planting trees to increase space (the forest density increases too) but carbon sequestration decreases because the wrong types of trees were planted (i.e. planting palm trees in an area where they’re not native or planting all pine trees)
How do cities affect BD?
- They drive global change
- Very heterogenous system
- Invasive species, fertilizers
- Disconnection of people from nature
- Microclimates
- Habitat loss, pollution, invasives = main HIPCO
Urbanization effects on BD: Plant species richness & evenness?
- It’s relatively high compared to “wildlands” & there is a higher diversity in wealthier areas, typically (the luxury effect)
- Dependent on socio-economics, etc (strongly influenced by humans, manageable)
- often entirely reconstructed (lawns, gardens, landscapes, etc), hence local BD can be 0 or super high
Urbanization effects on BD: animal abundance, species richness/evenness
- abundance has increased, generally (especially birds)
- species richness has decreased (esp. with native species)
- we’ve seen a shift to more generalist type animals (instead of specialized)
- connectivity between patches and size of patches = still key/a factor
Urban ecosystem services
- Same categories, different context, scale
- In(flow) of provisioning ES possible, but mostly is regulating & cultural ES
- Most of it relates to green space
» Availability, access to, quality thereof - Often linked to challenges, problems
Nature-based solutions and collaborative governance
There’s a master thesis focusing on this and on the barriers and drivers of collaborative governance in NBS (Nature-based solutions) in the Hague.
» Was found that most collaborative governance are assessed in different contexts than NBS.
» What is missing is integrality, NBS awareness and novelty, specified timeframe.
» Then, some recommendations were given (ex: put stakeholder collaboration on the agenda, create awareness for environmental issues and on NBS benefits.
Example of NBS in the Netherlands
In the Netherlands, the beach is sprayed every year in specific areas to avoid flood and combat beach erosion
» by “feeding the beach”, you feed the dunes, which are the first line of defense.
Working with natural processes: engineering perspective vs ecosystem perspective
- Working with natural processes means that coastal protection must be viewed as the protection of coastal ecosystems rather than protection of property.
- The alternative to work with natural processes is to resist them through engineering of the coast.
» BUT engineering (even soft engineering) is environmentally damaging.
» engineering doesn’t offer a sustainable approach to shoreline management. - Working with natural processes means permitting such processes sufficient space to operate → it thus requires infrastructures to be located away from the coast.
- So, only by giving natural processes their space to operate we are actually working with nature.
- Main issue is connected to property rights → important to understand that human infrastructures are the problem.
Remaining challenges for NBS
- Management: natural, modified or hybrid solutions
- Link biodiversity to societal challenges, human well-being and opportunities to work with other economic sectors.
- In several cases, either biodiversity is more important or wellbeing > thus, multifunctionality is messy and some sectors are prioritized than others.
» All this applies to agricultural transition.
What are institutions?
Humanly devised rules that structures all forms of political, economics and social interactions and behaviour within society
» Institutions are NOT organizations, but rules that guide how organizations (UN etc.) actually make decisions
What are roles of institutions?
- Create stable expectations of behavior
» help provide structure to interpret & navigate social dilemas - w/ BD: they can help shape the way businesses become more sustainable
» network collab > they set the stage to show collab can be done (by setting rules)
Institutions for ecosystem protection
- Protecting the most at-risk areas globally and other such threatened ecosystems requires a change in society’s institutions
» The laws that were developed a long time ago, were sensible at a time when resources were believed to be infinite and inexhaustible → they are now obsolete and outdated and ineffective as a result - Some institutions that have served us in the past, are no longer useful + successful nowadays to govern the present-day issues
Differences between Old vs New Institutionalism
The 3 main differences between these two streams of institutionalism lie within:
- Our understanding of humans in society
- The functioning of institutions in society
- The way we approach our study of institutions
What are the three areas/categories that new institutionalism falls under?
- rational choice
- sociological
- historical institutionalism
Each theoretical lens has its own advantages and disadvantages, so depending on different perspectives and on the research question, one or the other can be more or less useful
Rational choice institutionalism
- It builds on the theory that institutions define the parameters and limits to the decision choices of the actors
- It helps us understand how institutions shape strategic interactions between actors
Sociological institutionalism
- Focuses more on the cultural aspect and functions of institutions
Institutions are embedded in culture and society - We can understand how other contextual elements shapes human actions
» The result of their focus on culture
Historical institutionalism
- Focuses more on the interplay between the structure created by institutions and the agency of the actors that try to influence them
- It helps us understand more the concept of institutional change with regards to policymakers
Formal vs informal institutions
Together, they make up societal culture
Formal
* codified
* externally enforced
* laws, regulations, policies
Informal
* socially transmitted
* internally enforced
* norms, customs
Formal vs Informal: differentiating them
- They can also be distinguished as “rules in form” and “rules in use” (defined by Elinor Ostrom)
» Rules in form = something that exists on paper
» Rules in use = the ones which are actually being applied in practice - We can also distinguish rules based on how they are enforced or codified
» Formal and informal rules differ in their codification and enforcement
→ Formal rules: codified in legal documents, procedures etc.; enforced through legal mandates
→ Informal rules: socially transmitted codes of conduct, transmitted through society; enforced internally
Nested institutional arrangement
Nested structure: such that rules on one level are defined or determined by a set of rules at a higher level (it has implications on the way these rules are changed)
Breaking down the netsted institutional arrangement levels: meta-constitutional > constitutional > collective choice > operational rules
- Meta-constitutional level: set the constitutional level rules
- Constitutional level: constitutional choice rules set the rules at the collective-choice level
- Collective choice rules: level that structures the operational rules
» Decides what the operational rules are and how they should be implemented - Operational rules: structure day-to-day activities at the most local level of decision-making and society
» These rules directly affect the outcomes of decision-making on e.g., natural resources in the way they’re used or managed
How do institutions affect decision-making processes?
Operationalized by actors
- A framework used to conceptualize the functions of institutions in decision-making
* Shows how institutions are operationalized in practice by the actors during their decision-making process
Let’s dissect this diagram!
What is “action situation” (AS)?
Refers to a situation consisting of actors who are facing a particular dilemma or problem -> they will interact with each other and take decisions on what to do in that particular situation
Let’s dissect this diagram!
What does the left side, the external variables, mean?
- They are defined by several external variables:
- Underlying biophysical components of the system
- Attributes of community (social aspect)
- Rules-in-use (institutional context of the system)
» Together, these contextual factors shape the dynamics for the action situations
Let’s dissect this diagram!
What does the right side mean?
- The result of these different interactions between the actors will produce an outcome
» this outcome has a certain feedback to the system, called evaluative criteria - So, the outcome has an effect on the external variables as well as on the future decisions taken by the actors
Structural properties developed by Ostrom
- Position Rules: Tells us what positions actors have in that particular situation
- Boundary Rules: Will determine which actors are actually part of the situation and are going to make decisions about it
- Choice Rules: Determines what actions are available to all of the actors
- Aggregation Rules
- Information Rules
Aggregation & information rules will determine the amount of control that different people have over the decision-making process and the amount of information that is available to them when they are making a decision - Payoff Rules: It tells us about the costs and benefits of a particular situation (outcome)
- Scope Rules: The last two refer to the outcome of the decision-making process
- The scope rule will tell us what are possible outcome that could result from a particular situation
Unpacking the IAD (institutional analysis and development) framework: how each rule structures the AS
The IAD framework allows us to unpack action situations based on the structural properties that Ostrom proposed
IAD framework: Institutional effectiveness and change
- The IAD gives us insight into the process of institutional change -> represented by the feedback loops in red
- The process of institutional change is driven by the actors themselves
- Decision-making within the action situation is based on how actors perceive their environment
- Action situations produce an outcome -> the outcomes will affect future decision-making about the problem via the feedback loop
- On the right-hand side, the actors are evaluating the outcomes of their decisions using certain evaluative criteria
- Some of the criteria that actors can use to determine whether their outcome is good or bad: Economic efficiency, Equitability, Adaptability, Resilience, Accountability, and Conformance
What are some reasons as to why institutions aren’t effective?
- Overlapping
- Fragmented
- Vague
- Mismatched
- Exists only on paper
- Has not been evaluated
What are some challenges in regard to changing institutions?
- Rules are embedded (embedded nature of institutions)
- Institutions get increasingly embedded in society which makes them more stable but also very costly to change
» The timescale along which institutional change occurs also increases dramatically - Due to the embeddedness, achieving institutional change requires resources
» Actors may or may not have these resources to facilitate change
» As a result, institutional change is not really an option, especially for the less powerful or more marginalized actors - Actors are bounded rational
- Actors are also constrained in their decision-making capabilities
- They have mental models of how they make sense of their problems -> they’re not perfect because not all of the information we need to make decisions is available to us (incomplete mental model), and most of these issues are complex wicked problems
- Actors don’t have perfect rationality, so instead of finding the optimal solution to problems we look at satisfactory, “good enough” strategies (as opposed to the most optimal ones)
Governance of common pool resources (CPR): what does this mean?
A common pool resource is a resource that benefits a group of people, but which provides diminished benefits to everyone if the individual people are pursuing their self-interested strategy
What happens when there is overuse of a common pool resource? Explain what it is.
Tragedy of the commons;
- Common pool resources are resources used by a group of “appropriators” or resource users
* These resources are both non-excludable and depletable
- Common pool resources are made up of resource units (-> what individuals appropriate or use from that resource system)
* Resource units are not subject to joint use or appropriation
If a resource unit is being consumed by one appropriator, it cannot be used by another
What does it mean to apply a common pool resource to nature (CPR)?
- Labeling nature as a CPR has consequences, both positive and negative, on how nature is managed
- Brings together 2 systems
- Dynamic, ecological system that consists of different types of natural capital (e.g wetlands, forests etc)
- Social system, multi-jurisdictional, multi-level governance system to manage and use the natural capital via a set of rules
» Humanly constructed institutions and government arrangements to manage the resources - Influences the management of nature (+) and (-) ways
What are the 5 lenses that are embedded in adopting a CPR perspective? Briefly explain each.
1) How nature is appropriated - describes human use of natural capital but not nature’s intrinsic or relational value (E.g., taking timber from a forest is an act of appropriation, while the loggers are the appropriators)
2) Economic quantification of nature - here, economic benefits are the main motivating factor behind human consumption of nature (focus on economic benefits of nature for humans)
3) Nature is (easily) depletable - recognizes the limits of nature. However, this recognition of limits helps structure responses to avoid unsustainable out comes (e.g. reducing pesticides & increasing green areas to revive honeybee populations)
4) Property rights and anthropocentric management - “open-access” or unregulated commons. 4 common ways of governing CPR = gov regulation, privatization of property rights, individual self-regulation, collective action
5) Externalities & transboundary impacts - here we assume that one actor’s consumption of a resource unit has externalities on other actors in that particular resource system
* It recognizes that resources are shared by many actors, and those actors are intricately connected to each other through the use of the particular resource system
Panacea problem of nature protection
- Panacea = blueprint
- Rather than embracing the complexity of natural systems, we have a tendency to recommend simple solutions to complex problems
- Overly simplifying institutional prescriptions (or producing idealized types of governance for protecting ecosystems) is known as the panacea problem
- What is happening is: we tend to go to general solutions (blueprint solutions) as a cure-all for all different kinds of common pool resource problems–this is detrimental to the way we govern common pool resources
Beyond panaceas
- Diversity of institutions in forest conservation
- An important component that contributed to this progress: the extensive empirical research conducted by Ostrom and colleagues on the diversity of institutions around the world with regards to forest conservation
- Combination of different modes of governance can exist
- Collaboration between different governance actors => polycentricity
» Demonstrates the effectiveness of governance systems that enable users to develop rules and organizations at multiple levels
Vietnam Case study:
Reforestation policies w/ land use change & why local factors matter
*explain the background, goal, method, and outcome
→ institutional impact, types of institutions, IAD, levels in nested institutions
→ background = uplands of Vietnam, used to be primary forest, then crop cultivation started
→ goal = to see whether it was actually the formal institutions the govt put in place (land tenure certificates & reforestation programme) or whether something else played a role in the farmer’s decision-making
→ method = applied IAD framework, looked at the formal institutions, talked to farmers, used formal institutions/govt policies
→ main outcome: showed importance of zooming in, questioned long-term sustainability of the reforestation program, showed that national policies sometimes rely on false/exaggerated narratives on thie success
