The Actor in 4 dimensions: A relevant methodology to analyze local environmental governance and inform Ostrom's social-ecological systems framework

(1)

Method Article

The Actor in 4 dimensions: A relevant

methodology to analyze local environmental governance and inform Ostrom ’ s

social-ecological systems framework

Raphaëlle Dancette

^a

, Léa Sebastien

^b,

*

aUniversitéduQuébecàRimouski(UQAR),310alléedesUrsulines,Rimouski,Québec,G5L3A1,Canada

bToulouseIIUniversity,GeodeCNRSResearchCenter,5,AntonioMachadoStreet,31000Toulouse,France

ABSTRACT

ThispaperpresentstheActorin4dimensions(A4D)modelasacomplementarytooltotheSocial-ecological systems framework (SESF) in order to better integrate individual and groups’ representations into local environmentalgovernanceanalysis.AstheA4Disbasedonactors’representationsoftheirsocial-ecological system(SES)andofitsgovernance,itmainlyinformstheActorssubsystemoftheSESF,evenifitcanalsogive usefulinsightsforotherframework’ssub-systems.WedeﬁnetheSESFactor’ssub-tiersandthecorresponding A4DindicatorsandhighlightthecomplementaritybetweenbothapproachesinordertooperationalizetheSESF.

ThisparallelisexempliﬁedbythecaseofMaioisland(asmall-scaleﬁshingcommunityinCapeVerde).Our comparisonalso highlightsother assets of the A4D methodology for the advancement of environmental governance’sstudy.

^TheÂ4Dâllowsâctors'participationanddiscussionontheSESandanalysescommonanddivergentdiscourses andvaluesbetweenactors.

^The^A4D^points^to^power^relations^byintegratingstrong,weakandabsentactorsinitsanalysis.

^Byhighlightingsubjectiveandreﬂexiveelements,theA4DcomplementstheSESFintheircommonattemptto analyzeSES.

creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

ARTICLE INFO

Methodname:TheActorin4dimensionsanditsterritorialfootprint

Keywords:Actorin4dimensions(A4D),Social-ecologicalsystemsframework,Perceptions,Environmentalgovernance, Participation,Actors

Articlehistory:Received5February2019;Accepted25July2019;Availableonline31July2019

*Correspondingauthor.

E-mailaddresses:[email protected](R.Dancette),[email protected](L.Sebastien).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2019.07.025

creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

MethodsX

journalhomepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mex

(2)

SpeciﬁcationsTable

SubjectArea: EnvironmentalScience Morespeciﬁcsubjectarea: Localenvironmentalgovernance

Methodname: TheActorin4dimensionsanditsterritorialfootprint Nameandreferenceof

originalmethod:

L'Acteuren4Dimensions;SébastienL.&ParanF.(2006)

Resourceavailability: L’Acteuren4Dimensionspouruneexplorationsocialeetpatrimonialedujeud’acteurs territorial"+"Pourundiagnosticsocio-environnementalsurunterritoire:l'Acteuren4 Dimensions(A4D)"+"Leterritoire,unsystèmesocio-patrimonialdécryptéparlemodèlede l’Acteuren4Dimensions"(LéaSébastien,ResearchGate)

Methoddetails

TheActorin4dimensions(A4D)isarelevantandusefultooltocompletetheSocial-ecological systemsframework(SESF)throughtheinclusionofindividualandgroups'socialrepresentationsinto studiesonlocalgovernancesystems[1–3].Asafieldtool(withinterviewguidesandprecisequestions asexemplifiedinAnnex3),theA4Dmodelproposesaspecificmethodtostudymentalmodels,which can help operationalizing the SESF.The A4D adds tothe SESF an approach tostudy individual perceptionsandmotivations[2,4,5],andmeetstheneedtoallowactors'participationanddiscussions onsocial-ecologicalsystems(SES)[2,6].

AcomplementaryuseoftheA4DandtheSESFallowsbothasystemicandastrategicanalysisof SES.First,social-ecologicalsystemsandtheirframeworkaredefined[7,8]andtheirmostcommon uses, described. Then, the A4D is detailed (specificities and assets) and theterritorial footprint, presented.WeshowtherelevanceofthismethodtoinformtheSESframeworkbylinkingtheA4D indicatorswiththeSESFactors'tiers.Authors'tiers¹andindicatorsdefinitionsareused,andlinksare validatedbyaspecificcasestudyfromasmall-scalefishingcommunityinMaio,CapeVerde.

Thesocial-ecologicalsystemframework(SESF)

Environmentand societyinteractionshavebeencloselyexaminedinOstrom'sworkonsocial- ecologicalsystems[7–9].Social-ecologicalsystemsweredeﬁnedas"ecologicalsystemsintricately linkedwithandaffectedbyoneormoresocialsystems"[10,11].Ostrom’sframeworkprovidesabasic vocabularyofconceptsandtermsandallowsmakingcross-institutionalcomparisonsandevaluations [9]. Fig.1 describesthedifferentsubsystems(resourceunitsandsystems,governanceandusers) interactingtogetherwithinagivenSES[7].Theboxactorsisinredbecausethispaperfocusesonthe interactionsbetweentheA4Dindicatorsandtheactors’variables.

Ostrom’sframeworkaimsatunderstandingcomplexinteractionswithindifferentsystemsandat variousscales[12,13]. Theframeworkis composed of8 first-levelcoresub-systems definingthe interactionsof theSES:Social,EconomicandPoliticalsetting(S)andrelatedecosystems(ECO)will interactwiththe4multi-linkedsubsystems(ortiers)thatare:resourcesystems(RS),resourceunits (RU),governance systems(GS)and theactors (A).Ostromproposesa setof second-levelvariables (second-tiers)toexpressthemainfeaturesofeachsubsystem(Fig.1;definitionsinAnnex1)and leavesresearchersthechoicetoaddsecondoreventhird-levelvariablesinfunctionoftheiranalysis [7]. These second-levelvariables influencesub-systems' inputs onthesystem. For instance,size, productivityandpredictability(oftheresourcesystem)willinfluenceresourcesystem'sinteractionsand outcomesintheSES.Mobilitywillinfluenceresourceunits,whiletheactorssystemwilldependontheir

1 Atierisalogicalcategorythatcontainssubdivisionsorlower-leveltiers,calledsub-tiers.Forexample,ResourceSystems(RS) representsatop-tiercategorywithsecond-tiersubdivisionsdenotingsuchcharacteristicsasitssize(RS3),resourcesector(RS1), etc.(Fig.1).

(3)

number,leadership,norms,resourcedependency,socialcapitalandknowledge.Outcomesachievedina SESdependonsubsystemsandontheirinteractions.

SESFallowscombiningandbringingtogetherknowledgecomingfromdifferentdisciplinesand ﬁndingoutaboutthoseSESs'sustainabilityinordertoimprovetheirgovernanceandmanagement.

ManyresearchershaveusedtheSESframeworkindiverseenvironmentalgovernancecasesstudy[10].

However,anarrayofspeciﬁcmethodscanhelpinformingtheSES.ThispapershowshowtheActorin 4dimensions(A4D)caninformmanyelementsoftheSESF.

A4Ddescription:origin,dimensions,speciﬁcitiesandassets

The A4D multidisciplinary conceptual model is an original methodology studying local environmentalgovernance.TheA4Dmodeldefinestheterritoryasasocio-environmentalsystem, thatistosay,astheinterrelationsbetweensocialrelations(linksbetweenactors)andenvironmental relations(linkstonature).Thereforeitaimsatqualifyingtherelationsbetweenindividuals(anactor's socialprofile),whethertheyarestrong(powerful)orweakactors;andtherelationsbetweenhumans andnon-humans(anactor'senvironmentalprofile),whethertheyarefuturegenerationsorother species[14](Fig.2).Itwasdevelopedbothasatheoreticalandasamethodologicalmodel.Itaimsto examineactors'perceptionsonenvironmentalandsocialissues,onagivenspace.Itwasdesignedto understandtheoverall stakeholders' dynamicson a territory, based onthe analysisof different practices,representationsandknowledgebetweenactorsabouttheenvironmentandabouttheactor system.

TheA4Dresultsallowproducingwhattheirauthorscallthe"territorialfootprint",anillustrationof socialandenvironmentalproﬁlesonaterritoryformingaspiderwebgraph(Fig.3).

Fig.1.Social-ecologicalframework(asupdatedin[9]withthemostrecentsetofvariablesincludedintotheSESF[10].

(4)

Eachstakeholder (actorof thesystem)hasan individualfootprint, whichis produced bythe compilationof32variables(describedanddefinedinAnnex2)comprisedineightsub-dimensions, makingthemodelbothqualitative,bytheapproachchosen,andquantitative,bytheresultsanalysis chosen.Thefourmaindimensions ofthemodelare:cooperationand conflict(socialprofile); and

Fig.2.Explanationsofsocialandenvironmentalproﬁles(takenfrom[14]).

Fig.3. A4DterritorialfootprintofalocalﬁshermaninMaio,CapeVerde.

(5)

cohabitationand domination(environmentalproﬁle).The8 sub-dimensionsofthemodel(esteem;

esteemed; criticize; criticized; attached; preserve; distant; spoil) inform about direct and indirect positioningofanactorwithintheSES,eachfootprintbeinginformedbytheactordiscourseabout himself(oneoftheassetsoftheA4Dmodelisthisreflexivity)aswellastheothersdiscoursesabout theactor.TheA4Dinvestigateswithinitssocialprofileifanactorcriticizes/esteemsothersandin return,ifheisesteemed/criticizedbyothers.Followingthesamelogicwiththeenvironmentalprofile andbasedontheideathatactorsinfluencetheterritoryasmuchastheterritoryinfluencesthem,we analyzeifanactorappearsattached/distanttohisenvironment,andifheappearstopreserve/spoil naturalassets.The32variables givedifferentinformationontheactors'tendencieswithinthose dimensionsthroughtheanalysisoftheirpractices,representationsandknowledge.Thefootprint, illustratingstakeholders'involvementandinteractions,allowsonetoanalyzecommonanddivergent pointsbetweenindividualsandgroups(ifmultipleindividualfootprintsaregroupedbymakingan average of actors’ indicators’ notation, detailed in Annex 4). Footprints comparison underlines commonvalues,whichcanbeusefultoworktowardsnewenvironmentalgovernances.

In order tostudyactors'positions in theirSES,theA4D model is basedon1–2hlong semi- structuredinterviewsthataskactorsspeciﬁcandbroaderquestionsontheirenvironmentandits governance.Inthis speciﬁccase(thestudyofMaio’smarinegovernance),43 actorsfromvarious backgroundsandsectors havebeeninterviewed.Theinterviewguideis composed of5sections:

structuraldata;ecologicalassets;socialassets;personalactionsandprospective(Annex3presentsan exampleof an interview guidefor ﬁshermen). Each interview is decryptedthrough a discourse analysis(qualitativeapproach)andinformstheterritorialfootprint(quantitativeapproach).

Forinstance,questionsrelatedtothesocialrealm,inthedimensionconﬂictandsub-dimension criticizeswouldbe:"whommostdeterioratestheenvironment;whoareyourenemies/opponents?".

Dependingontheactors'answers,thevisionofotherscomponentwouldscorelow(0:theactordoesn't talkaboutothers,oronlytalkspositivelyaboutthem)tohigh(5:theactorstandsagainstsomeother actors'projectsandclearlyidentifiesitsenemies/opponents).Theresultwouldthenbereportedon thespiderweb,in frontof thevision ofothers component(Annex 4shows howanswerscan be translatedintoindicators'scores).Fig.3showsafisherman'sfootprint(handlinefishing).Itappears thatitsleftside(cooperationandcohabitation)iswiderthanitsrightside(conflictanddomination).

Thisactorespeciallypreserves(viaasimpleandnon-invasivelifestyle)andisattached(evenifhesees someissues,limitingitsattachment)tohisenvironment(environmentalprofile).Hissocialprofile showsthatheisesteemed(forhistraditional andvitalrolein Maio'scommunity)butthatheis involvedinimportantsocialissues(inthiscase,mostlywithindustrialfishermen).

TheA4Dcanrevealimportantinformationabouttheactors'interactionsandhasthepotentialtobe usedbygovernance agentsand actors themselves,byimproving thedialogue onenvironmental issues. Managers could use this information and the whole footprint to better understand communitiesandactors'dynamics(allquestionsandrelatedscoresfortheindicatorsaredetailed inAnnex3and4).Ifdiscussedinaparticipatorygovernanceprocess,itcouldhelptotargetwhere mediationeffortsneedtobeconcentrated,whatunderlyingelementsexplaintheactors'perceptions, and wheredifferent interests need tobethoroughly discussed and negotiated. TheA4D and its resultingterritorialfootprintthuscanbeavehicleofdataanddebate,representinganoperationaltool foramediator,andtransferabletomultipleterritoriesandresources[27].

Methodvalidation(datathatvalidatethemethodandconnecttheSESandA4Dframeworks)

InordertoparalleltheA4DwithOstrom'sframework,thispartisdedicatedtospecifyinglinks betweenbothapproaches,andAnnexes1&2detailthoseindicatorswithdefinitions.Wefocushere onthecomponentsoftheactors'categoryoftheSESF,wheretheanalysisofperceptionstakesan importantplace.Thissubsystemnotablyreflectshowintervieweesseethemselvesaswellasother actorsin relationwiththeenvironment (i.e.,A4D'ssocial andenvironmental profile).Theactors' subsystemoftheSESFthuspresentsmanycommonelementswiththeA4D'sindicators.Information wastakenfrom[7,8,12,15,16]fortheSESF,andfrom[17]fortheA4D.Previousresearchunderlinedthe needforbetteranduniformdefinitionsoftheSESFtiers,aswellasformethodstomeasurethem[10].

SESFactor’ssub-tiers’linkageswiththeA4Dvariablesaredescribedbelow.

(6)

TheA4Dmodelhasbeentestedonvariousterritorieswithverydifferentenvironmentalissues (ex:watermanagementontheKilimandjaro[14];fisheriesgovernanceinCapeVerde[18,19];gravels managementneartheLoireRiverandwetlandsintheBasquecountry[20]).Wechosetoexemplifythe parallelbetweentheSESFandtheA4Dbyshowingtheresultsofouranalysisofgovernancesystemsof asmall-scalefisheryonMaioisland(CapeVerde)²,whicharedetailedinthepaper“Ananalysisof actors’perceptionsofMaioisland’s(CapeVerde)marinegovernance”inthejournalMarinePolicy [19].Fig.4showsthefishermen'sgroupfootprint,withA4DindicatorsrelatedtoActor'ssub-tierof Ostrom'sSESF.Eachsub-tiercanbefoundonthefootprint(A2toA8)andconnectionsbetweenboth frameworksareexplainedhereafter.

Actors(A)Tier[7,8,16]

A1Numberofactors

TheA1sub-tierisdeﬁnedasthenumberofactorsaffectingdecision-makingprocessesintheSES.

TheaimoftheA4Dmodelistomeetandinterviewallactors,ortheirrepresentatives,concernedby environmentalissuesonanareainordertoanalyzethestakeholders’dynamics.Therefore,theA4D model does not include a speciﬁc indicatorconcerning the number of actors, which is context dependentbutidentiﬁesstrongandweakactors,aswellasabsentactors(suchasfuturegenerations andotherspecies)[20],makingtheActorcategoryoftheA4DmoreinclusivethantheSESFapriori.

Fig.4.Fishermen’sgroupterritorialfootprint(1.1.1–4.2.4),withequivalentSESFActorssub-tiers’indicators(A1–A8).

2 ﬁeldworkfromtwoon-sitemissions:summer2013andautumn2015

(7)

Evenifthenumberofactorsmayinformthesamplesize,andthusinvolvearelativerepresentativeness,it doesnotinformtheactors'degreeofpowerorinfluence.Effectively,anactormayhaveanimportant influenceonotheractorsoronspecificresources,makingitsgeneralinputontheSESmoreimportant thananotherwithlessassets.TheA4Dinterview'smethod,withsnowballreferencesforotheractorsto interview,allowsonetotargetallstakeholdersofanarea,andthuscollectthediversityofactors' perceptions.Italsoidentifiespowerrelationsofdifferentindividualsandgroups.

Inthecaseofthesmall-scalefishingcommunityofMaioisland,thetotalcommunitycomprises between5000 and 7000 people,withofficially137 fishermen and89 fishsaleswomen [21].We considereddifferentgroupsofactorswhichcouldbeintegratedintheSESF:small-scalefishermen, fishsaleswomen,regional,nationalandmunicipaldecision-makersandmanagers,othereconomic actors,academics,andfinally,unaffiliatedindividuals.Intotal,weconducted43interviews(ofwhich, 12artisanalfishermenand2fishsaleswomen).

A2Socioeconomicattributes(economicandcultural)

TheA2sub-tierisdeﬁnedassocialandeconomiccharacteristicsofactorsthataffecttheactivity's dynamics.

IntheA4D,actors'featuresareexaminedashavingapotentialforcooperation,orontheopposite,a potentialforconflictwithotheractors.Theyareillustratedthroughthetwomainsocialsub-dimensions esteemedand criticized.Thesub-dimensionesteemed comprisestheindicatorsattractionpotential, relevance,recognitionandothers'visionoftheactor.Theseindicatorsrelatetotheextenttowhichan actor'sassetsarenumerous,un-ordinary,neededandappreciatedbyotheractors.Thesub-dimension criticizedincludestheindicatorsdisputepotential,degreeofconflictimplication,significanceofconflicts andothers'visionoftheactor.Theseindicatorsaredirectlyopposedtotheesteemedindicators.They relatetothe extenttowhich anactor's shortcomingsare numerous and generate conflicts, the importanceoftheconflictstheycreateandtheimpactsthatthoseshortcomingshaveonotheractors.

InMaio'ssmall-scalefishermengroup,socio-economicattributesgeneratemorecooperationthan conflicts (the sub-dimension esteemed is greater than the sub-dimension criticized) despite the importanceofconflictswithindustrialfisheriesfordecliningfishstocks,andthepervasivenessofthis issueforthewholesocio-ecologicalsystem(indicatorsignificanceofconflictsrateshigh:4,5/5).

A3Historyofuse/ofpastexperience

ThisA3sub-tierisdeﬁnedaspastinteractionsthataffectcurrentactor'sbehaviorandactivity's dynamics:crises,duration.

ReferringtotheA4D,historyandpastexperiencesexplaininganactor'svisiononresourcesuseis illustratedby the sub-dimensions preserves and spoils in the environmental proﬁle. These sub- dimensionsalsoincludeotherstakeholders'visionontheactor'sexperienceswithresourcesuse.The preservessub-dimensioniscomposedoftheindicators:actor'svisionofhimself,others'visionofthe actorandpreservationscale.Theyrelatetotheactor'svisionofhisownenvironmentalbehavior,tothe people recognizing his preservation qualities and to the extent of his effective environmental protection.Thespoilssub-dimensioniscomposedoftheindicators:visionofhimself,others'visionand spoilingscale.Theyrefertotheactor'sfeelingstowardspast,presentandfuturepractices;andtothe waysotheractorsperceivehis(moreorlessimportant)environmental-spoilingactivities.

InMaio'ssmall-scaleﬁshers'case,thewholepreservessub-dimensionscoreswayhigher(4.5/5) thanthespoilssub-dimension(1.5/5).Fishermenthusconsidertheirimpactonthesocio-ecosystemas beingpositive,whichmeansthattheyconsiderthattheymostlypreservetheenvironment(andhave alwaysdoneso),andthatenvironmentalissuesarenotrelatedtotheirgroup'sactions.Othersalsosee themaspreserving(muchmorethanspoiling)agents.

A4Location

Locationisdeﬁnedasthephysicalplacewhereactorsareinrelationtotheresourceitselfandtothe market.

(8)

WithintheA4Dmodel,theterritory'slocationanddescriptionisscopedinafirstobservatoryand field-familiarizationphase,beforeproceedingtotheinterviews.Thisfirstterritorialdiagnosisaimsat identifyingthedifferentgroupspresentonthearea.Then,bycollectingthediverseperceptionsofthe territory, the A4D helps to delineate the territory's boundaries as perceived by the actors.

Furthermore,thesub-dimensionsonplaceattachmentandplacedistanceexploretheattractionand repulsionofspeciﬁcobjectsoftheterritory,andthusinformonthelikedanddislikedphysicalobjects oftheterritory,preciselylocated.

MaioislandbeingveryisolatedfromSantiago(CapeVerde'scapital)andotherislandsduetoa greatlackofappropriatetransportationbetweenislands,andbecauseofitssmallsize(275km²),the islandandits(vital)surroundingwatersarethemostappropriatescaletostudySES.

A5Leadership

Leadershipisdeﬁnedasausefulskilltoorganizecollectiveaction(peopletendtofollowactors withgoodleadership).

IntheA4D,leadershipisillustratedbythesub-dimensionsesteemandcriticize,andespeciallyby theindicators degreeof involvement, which concernsthe extenttowhich one actor respectsthe system'snormsandvalues(passivelyorpro-actively,withmoreleadership);andtheindicatorroom formaneuverthatreﬂectstheactor'scapacitytomobilizehisassetstonegotiatewithotheractors.

Together,theyinformontheactor'spotentialtoorganizecollectiveaction.

Forlocalfishermen,thedegreeofinvolvementaswellastheroomformaneuverindicatorsscore relativelylow(respectively2.5and3/5),reflectingaquitepoorleadership.Infact,aseveryfisherman doeshisownbusinessandsurvivesassuch,withoutimportantcollaborationeffort,theyappeartobe satisfiedwiththeirlowinfluenceonothers.Eveniftheydon'trespect(recognizeandvalue)theactual systemandinstitutions,fishermenaregenerallypoorlymotivatedbytheideaofmoreinvolvementto changethisimperfectbutstillfunctionalsystem.

A6Normsandsocialcapital

Normsandsocialcapitalaredeﬁnedasthedegreebywhichindividualscandrawuponorrelyon othersforsupportorassistanceintimesofneed:inbrief,itrepresentstheirtrustinothers.

IntheA4D,indicatorsoftheesteemandcriticizesub-dimensionsarerelevanttoinformonthe degreeoftrustoftheactors,especiallytheindicatorsactor'svisionofothersandrespectofinstitutions onthecooperationside,andactor'svisionofothersandnon-compliancewithinstitutionsontheconﬂict side.Thoseindicators respectivelyrefertotheactor's positiveperceptionaboutothers andtheir projects(thusincludingtrustandsupport);totheactor'scomplianceandmobilizationinconformity withstateandinstitutions'normsandprograms;totheactor'scritiquesofothersandtheirprojects (i.e.distrust and dissidence); andﬁnally,tothe actor'sdisagreement degreeoninstitutions and programs(whichisoftenlinkedwithdistrustandlassitudetowardunsuccessfulinitiatives).

Maio'sfishermenshowedlittlerespectforinstitutionsandothers. Eveniftheydon'tformally disagree with institutions, they feel an important lassitude and exasperation towards their ineffectiveness. They alsocriticize otheractors, industrial fishermen first, but alsocorrupted or lazymanagers.Theyconsiderthatlocalpolice,managersandresponsibility-tasksemployeesdon't thoroughlydotheirjobs.However,theyexplainthisattitudebythesmallsize,smallpopulationand low technical, humanand financial means of the island, which prevents people from properly enforcinglawsandpositiveinitiatives.

A7KnowledgeofSESandmentalmodels

KnowledgeofSESisdeﬁnedasthedegreetowhichstakeholdersunderstandandmakesenseofthe characteristicsand/ordynamicsoftheSES.

ApprehendingconvergencesanddivergencesofknowledgeamongactorsisagreatpartoftheA4D model,thereforeitisexpressedthroughvariousindicators.Onthesocialproﬁle,visionofcommon action(cooperation)andvisionofsocialissues(conﬂicts)informaboutthetypeofknowledgemobilized

(9)

bytheactoronsocialissues.Ontheenvironmentalproﬁle,visionofenvironmentalissues(cohabitation) andvisionofman-naturerelationship(domination)informaboutthetypeofknowledgemobilizedby theactoronenvironmentalissues.Theseindicatorsrespectivelyrelatetoanactor'sunderstandingof hissocialenvironment;tohisperceptionofantagonistactorsandissues;tohisawarenessandfeelings towardsenvironmentalissues;andﬁnally,tohisperceptionofactorsandissuesthataredetrimental fortheenvironment.

Maiense'sfishermenconsiderthatthereareimportantsocialandenvironmentalissuesintheSES, themostimportantonebeingforeignandindustrialfisheries,thatincreasinglydepletethestocksthey usedtofeedon(e.g.tunas)andcomealwayscloserto(andevenentersometimes)theirrestrictedlocal fishingzone(3nauticalmilesfromshore).TheyconsiderfishingagreementsinCapeVerde'swaters, boat motorization and the arrival of scuba diving tanks as past events that increased the SES vulnerability.Infutureyears,somefeelapprehension ofmass-tourismwhileotherswish itcould enrichtheirisland.

Fishermenpresentspecificanddetailedknowledgeonthespeciestheyfishorusedtofish,onsocial rolesofotheractors,oncertaingroups'corruption,etc.However,Maio'scommunitydoesn'tliketodig toofarintheirpeers'lives,makingthemunawareofsomeproblemsorpreventingthemfromactingto improvetheSES.

FishermenseetheirownactionaspositivefortheSES(theVisionofenvironmentalissuesindicator rates4/5andtheVisionofman-naturerelationshipindicatorrates0.5/5),whichreﬂectstheirawareness ontheSES,andtheirattitudeofpreservationandlowdominationonthesocio-ecosystem.

A8Importanceofresource/resourcesdependence

Thiselementisdeﬁnedasthesourceofmonetaryincome,livelihoods,culturalvalues,practices andservicescomingfromtheresourcestothebeneﬁtoftheactors.

In the A4D, all indicators of place attachment and detachment (attached and distant sub- dimensions)directlyinformthisvariable.Indeed,these8indicatorsgiveinformationonwhattypesof territorialentitiesarelikedordisliked,howtheboundingordetachmentcanbecharacterized,and whatthesocialandspatialimplicationsofthesedifferentaffectivelinksare.

Infishermen'scase,belovedorhighlyvaluedentities(tunas,groupers,mackerels,etc.aswellastheir boatsandtheseaitself)ratequitehigh(4/5)whilethedegreeofboundingisslightlylower(3.5/5), becausemanyexpressedtheintentiontoquitfishing.Thisisduetodecliningstocks,toharsherfishing conditionsastheyneedtogofurtheratseawiththeirsmallembarkations,andtochangingclimateand sea conditions, making their work increasingly unsafe and unpredictable. Social implication of attachment(3.2.3)isalsoquitehigh(4/5),explainedbythefactthatadegradationoffishermenentity (fishingstocks;fishingcapacities,etc.)makessomeofthemwishtoquitfishing,whileothersstillwant tocontinuetheirlifevocation.Spatialimplicationofattachment(3.2.4)isalsohigh(4.25/5)because fishermenaregreatlyawarethatadeclineoftheirentitiesmeansathreatforthewholeSES.Theyalso wouldliketotransmittofuturegenerationsthepristineandrichseathattheyusedtoknow,aswellas traditionalactivitieslikelinefishing.Insummary,fishermenareattachedtotheirSES,buttheystrongly feelthenecessitytodistancefromitbecauseoftheirbelovedandsubsistenceentities'decline.

Notabene

AlthoughthispaperscopesOstrom'sSESFActortierinordertoparallelwiththeA4Dmodel,we wishtoendthispartbyaddingthatotherelementsoftheSESFcanalsobeinformedbytheA4D,such asGovernance,InteractionsandOutcomessubsystems.Asanexample,fortheInteractionssubsystem, theconﬂictssub-tierconstitutesawholedimensionoftheA4D,beingthusaddressedwithlotsof details, as well as social bounds (ex: Interactions' sub-tiers on self-organizing and networking activities).ConcerningtheOutcomessubsystem,theA4Dmeasuressocio-economicandecological performancethroughactors'perceptionoftypesofsocialandenvironmentalbounds,andthroughthe importancethattheygiveonthementionedissues.Whenenumeratingpast,presentandforeseen elementsthat haveorcoulddisturbtheirwell-beingand thewholeSES, theyinevitablyrefer to outcomes,quantifyingtheseoutcomeswithinahumansubjectivescale.

(10)

Additionalinformation:introductiononSESandA4D

Social-ecologicalsystems(SES)areincreasinglyusedtostudyhuman-environmentsystems[22].

TheSocial-EcologicalSystemsframework(SESF)wascreatedbyElinorOstromtobetterunderstand them[7,16].Itreceivedmuchattentionsince2007[10].However,eveniftheSESFisanimportant analytical framework [12,23], its operationalization remains elusive [12,24]. Also, even if stakeholders' participation is promoted by many authors [2,6,25] and even if Ostrom encourages researcherstobuildtheirownframeworksincollaborationwiththesystemstakeholders,theSESFhas beencriticizedforitsdifﬁcultyinshowingandexplainingdiverseactors'viewpoints,perceptionsor intentions[2,4,5],whichinﬂuenceSESinteractionsandoutcomes.

SébastienandParan[28]developedtheActorin4dimensionsmethodology(A4D)in2006[17]in order to analyze and model an actor's relationship with other actors (social profile), and his relationship with nature (environmental profile) [14]. In this regard, the A4D model informs specifically the Actors' sub-systemof theSESF, even if it canalso give useful insights for other framework'ssub-systems.³

Additionalinformation:discussionontheA4DcomparisonwiththeSESF Individualperceptionsanddiscourses

ThefirstcontributionoftheA4Dmodel towardstheSESFis thatoftheanalysisofindividual perceptions.TheA4Disdesignedtogatherandstudyindividualperceptions(includingintentions),or mentalmodelsandbeliefsystems[1,4,5,10],whichinfluenceinteractionsbetweenindividuals,and betweenindividualsandtheirenvironment,withuniqueoutcomesfromonepersontotheother.As theSESF onlyanalyses groups ofactors, it can beblindtosomeindividuals that would makea differenceonthewholesystem[5].Inourcasestudy,thisiswhathappenedwithafishermanwho divestogatherbuzios(gastropods)inhugequantitiesalmosteachday.Evenifmostotherfishermen arerespectfulofthelawsandoftheenvironment,onesinglefishermanwithahighdegreeofsocial conflictandenvironmentaldominationcouldgreatlyaffecttheSES(withoutbeingidentifiedinthe globalpictureoftheSES;seeFig.5).

SESFisagreatschematicrepresentationofacomplexsystem.However,itcouldbetterincorporate individualperceptionsandtheirimpactsonthesystem[5].TheA4Dmethodologyanditsterritorial footprints provide a tool to better understand the diversity, repartition and impacts of these perceptions.

Inthesameline,Thieletal.[10]highlightedthelackofdiscussionontheroleofdiscoursesin 20studiesusingSESF.Byanalyzingeachactor'sdiscourseandbyunderliningwhichelementsoftheir vocabularybestreflecttheirmindsetondifferentissues,theA4Dallowsresearcherstousediscourses toexplainInteractionsandOutcomesoftheSES.Forinstance,somefishermenconsideredthatthesea is morepowerful thaneverything; thatit canrecoverfrom anyharm.Theythus seefishstocks declining,butremainconfidentintheirnatural/spontaneousrecovery,whichisalsorelatedtotheir religiousfervor(beliefs).Thismayexplainanattitudeofcertainlaxitytowardsnationaldecisionsthat mayaffecttheirmarineenvironment,andinfine,theirsubsistenceandlivelihoods.Theirdiscourses thereforereflectpersonalviewpoints,onthemselves(theiractivitiesandpositionintheSES)andon others(other'sactivitiesandplaceintheSES).

AnotheruniqueattributeoftheA4Dtheory,methodologyandmodel,isitsreflexivity.TheA4D illustrates others' visions and discourses onan actor as wellas reflecting the actor'sindividual perceptions onhimself.In thecourseofan A4Dinterview, actorsareaskedabouthow theysee themselves in the SES: if they think that they have a beneficial or detrimental effect on the environment;iftheythinkthatotheractorsappreciatetheirworkandroleintheSES,etc.Thisdoes

3 TheA4DhavingbeendevelopedbyFrenchresearchers,andhavingmainlybeenspreadinFrench-writtenjournalsand researchnetworks,thispaperpresentsagreatoccasiontopositiontheA4DmethodologywithinafamousEnglish-speaking worldframeworkstudyingenvironmentalgovernance:theSESframework.

(11)

Fig.5.Comparisonofgroupedfootprints(12localfishermentotheleft-A)andindividualfootprint(spearfisher/diver-buzio fisherman-ontheright-B).

(12)

notseemtobeintegratedinOstrom'sframework,althoughpeopleperceptionsofthemselves,oftheir capacitytochangetheSES,etc.areessentialelementsaffectingtheirrealactionontheSES[4,5].The A4DtheninformstheActor'ssub-systemandsecond-tiersandgoesfurtherintotheactors'analysis throughthisreﬂexivity.

Powerrelationsandglobalgovernance

Ofthe20 case studiesanalyzedbyThiel et al.[10], noneorfew discussedtherole ofpower dissymmetriesinexplainingSES.Thislimitationmaybeduetothesespeciﬁccasestudiesortothe framework itself. Evenif not centralto theSESF, conﬂict and power relations analysis is partly integratedinthe"rulesinuse"oftheSESFbyshowingwhichgrouporindividual'sinterestsprevail effectivelyintheSES,especiallywhencomparedwithformalstatements[26,27].Still,powerrelations areunder-representedintheSESF[27,28].

Aspowerrelationsareoftenlinkedtoindividuals'assets(goods,contacts,jobpositions,orother elementssuchas blackmail),itis easiertoincludepowerstakesintodiscussionwhen analyzing individualsandtheirperceptionsintheSES,insteadofgroups.Powerrelationsareattheheartofthe A4D,whichaimsatanalyzingwhichactorsandelementsinﬂuencethemostenvironmentalissuesand governance.Forinstance,indicatorsofthe"esteemed"and"criticized"sub-dimensionsrefertopower relationsbasedonmoney,onknowledge,onassetsuniquenessandonsocialpositionandinﬂuences.

Regardingtheenvironmentalproﬁle,powerrelationsappearmainlyintheabilityofactorstoprotect ordestroyenvironmentalassetsontheterritory.

Byclassifyingactorsasstrong,weakandabsentactorswithinaSES,theA4Ddealswithunequal powerrelations[29].Whilestrongactorswillgenerallybereflectedineffectivedecisionsandactions ontheSES,weakactorsarethosewhodonothavethebestassetsinthenegotiation(charisma,power, relations...) to impose their choice, their moral value and defend their interests. These are underrepresentedcontemporaryhumans whocan bringunthought-of elementstotheterritorial debate,suchas vernacularknowledge,a memoryof theplace,territorialties [29]. Absent actors representbiologicallivingandfuturegenerationsandareembodiedbynon-humanactorsandnon- contemporaryactors,thosewhocannotbepresentatthenegotiatingtableandwhoarenevertheless stakeholders.Whileitisimportanttofindanegotiatedsolutiontoconflictsbetweencontemporary humansovertheusesofacommongood,itshouldnotbeadoptedtothedetrimentofabsentactors [30].TheA4D,byidentifyingspokespersonsspeakinginthenameofweakandabsentactors(reflecting theirinterests),allowstheirvoicetobeheard,ortobeintegratedintothenegotiationprocess.All actors(strong,weakandabsentactors)needtobeintegratedintotheSESanalysis,becauseanalysis basedsolelyonstrongactors'perceptionscouldleadtoenvironmentaldegradation[29].Ifallput together,orifgroupedwithoutcarefulattention,strong,weakandabsentactorscouldallbemixed, thusnot properlyreflectingunderlying powerrelations.This-dissociation ofpowerrelations in place - feature of the A4D, could then help to "reconnect" SES studies and decision-relevant informationthatpolicymakerscoulduse[31].

InMaio,agroupthatappearedtobeagoodspokespersonforfuturegenerationsaswellasfor marinelifewasfishsaleswomen.Effectively,thisgroupwasveryattachedtotheenvironmentandto itsentity(fish,forsubsistenceandtraditionalmeals,butalsospeciesthathaddisappearedorwere threatened,suchassome sharkand ray species).Theywereveryconcernedby Maienses future generations'ability tocontinue fishingand pursuetheirtraditional livelihoodactivities.For that reason,theywantedtobeheardinorder topreserveMaio's SES.Theirviewsoncommonaction (participativegovernance)werethehighestofallgroupsofactors.Therefore,fishsaleswomen,willing tobeinvolvedindecision-makingandattachedtotheirentities(jobandfish,forthemselvesand foremost,forfuturegenerations),areagoodexampleofspokespersonforweakandabsentactorsin theA4D.

Governancesystemsareguidedbyindividuals,eachhavingtheirownperceptionsonsocialand environmentalstakes,andthusinfluencingdecision-makingaswellasrelatedprocesses(governance communication,informationandeffectiveenforcement).Individualperceptionsinfluencecollective accesstonaturalresources,totheirpropertyandusagerights.InMaio'scase,somedecision-makers thinkthatfishoverexploitationismainlycausedbylocalillegalpracticesandthereforeregulated

(13)

thoseactivities.Althoughtheseneedtobelimited,fishingpressurefromforeignfisheriesisagreater threat,onmostinterviewees’pointofview.Therefore,decisionsdonotovercomethemaincauseof resourcesoverexploitation.Thisdichotomybetweenperceptions(orintentions[5])andactionscan onlybeaddressedbytheSESFifitcorrespondstoagroup'smentalmodel,whichappearsmoreclearly intheA4Dbyacomparisonbetweenindividualsandgroups'footprintsandtherefore,byacomparison oftheirenvironmentalandsocialprofiles.

Usingterritorialfootprintsalsoallowsparticipativegovernanceandinformationsharingbetween actors,an essential criteria for good co-management [32]. The A4D model can effectively help engagingdialogueamongactors,byrevealingindividualintentionsandperceptions,byallowinga debateaboutactor’svalues,andbyproposinganegotiationbetweenstrong,weakandabsentactors.

Conclusion

We showed that the A4D can be a useful method to complete and operationalize the SES framework, specifically its Actor’s subsystem, by incorporating individual strategic (subjective) elementsinasystemicframeworkandbyaddingareflexiveperspective.Furthermore,theassociation of A4D model and SES framework contributes toa reflection ongovernance issues, and on the necessaryintegrationofindividualperceptionsandpowerrelationsintheanalysisoflocalgovernance systems.Inthatperspective,theA4Danditsterritorialfootprintcanbepowerfultogofurtherinthe SESanalysis,andinitsdiffusiontowardslocalactors.

AppendixA.Supplementarydata

Supplementarymaterialrelatedtothisarticlecanbefound,intheonlineversion,atdoi:https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.mex.2019.07.025.

References

[1]N.Bennett,Usingperceptionsasevidencetoimproveconservationandenvironmentalmanagement,Conserv.Biol.30(3) (2016)582–592.

[2]M.Andrachuk,D.Armitage,Understandingsocial-ecologicalchangeandtransformationthroughcommunityperceptions ofsystemidentity,Ecol.Soc.20(4)(2015)26.

[3]P.E.Cookey,R.Darnswasdi,C.Ratanachai,Localpeople’sperceptionsofLakeBasinwatergovernanceperformancein Thailand,OceanCoast.Manag.120(2016)11–28.

[4]D.A.DeCaro,M.K.Stokes,Publicparticipationandinstitutionalﬁt:asocial-psychologicalperspective,Ecol.Soc.18(4) (2013)40.

[5]L.M.Hunt,S.G.Sutton,R.Arlinghaus,Illustratingthecriticalroleofhumandimensionsresearchforunderstandingand managingrecreationalﬁsherieswithinasocial-ecologicalsystemframework,Fish.Manag.Ecol.20(2013)111–124.

[6]B.Walker,etal.,Resiliencemanagementinsocial-ecologicalsystems:aworkinghypothesisforaparticipatoryapproach, Conserv.Ecol.6(1)(2002)14.

[7]E.Ostrom,Ageneralframeworkforanalyzingsustainabilityofsocial-ecologicalsystems,Science325(2009)419–422.

[8]E.Ostrom,M.Cox,Movingbeyondpanaceas:amulti-tiereddiagnosticapproachforsocial-ecologicalanalysis,Environ.

Conserv.(2010)1–13.

[9]M.D.McGinnis,E.Ostrom,Social-ecologicalsystemframework:initialchangesandcontinuingchallenges,Ecol.Soc.19(2) (2014)12.

[10]A.Thiel,M.E.Adamseged,C.Baake,Evaluatinganinstrumentforinstitutionalcrafting:howOstrom’ssocial-ecological systemsframeworkisapplied,Environ.Sci.Policy53(2015)152–164.

[11]J.M.Anderies,M.A.Janssen,E.Ostrom,Aframeworktoanalyzetherobustnessofsocial-ecologicalsystemsfroman institutionalperspective,Ecol.Soc.9(1)(2004)17.

[12]M.d.M.Delgado-Serrano,P.A.Ramos,MakingOstrom’sframeworkapplicabletocharacterisesocialecologicalsystemsat thelocallevel,Int.J.Commos9(2)(2015)808–830.

[13]G.Epstein,etal.,Missingecology:integratingecologicalperspectiveswiththesocial-ecologicalsystemframework,Int.J.

Commons7(2)(2013)432–453.

[14]L.Sebastien,TheChaggapeopleandenvironmentalchangesonMountKilimanjaro:lessonstolearn,Clim.Dev. 1(2)(2010) 364–377.

[15]X.Basurto,S.Gelcich,E.Ostrom,Thesocial-ecologicalsystemframeworkasknowledgeclassiﬁcatorysystemforbenthic small-scaleﬁsheries,Glob.Environ.ChangePartA23(2013)1366–1380.

[16]E.Ostrom,Adiagnosticapproachforgoingbeyondpanaceas,Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A.104(39)(2007)15181–15187.

[17]L.Sébastien,Humainsetnon-humainsenpourparlers:l'Acteuren4DimensionsPropositionthéoriqueetméthodologique transdisciplinairefavorisantl'émancipationdenouvellesformesdegouvernancesenvironnementalesApplicationau domainedel'eausurtroisterritoires:laPlaineduForez,lespentesduKilimanjaroetlesBarthesdel'Adour,inScienceset

(14)

géniedel'environnement,ÉcolenationalesupérieuredesminesdeSaint-ÉtienneetUniversitéJeanMonnetdeSaint- Étienne,Saint-Étienne,2006,pp.204.

[18]R.Dancette,Growingvulnerabilityinthesmall-scaleﬁshingcommunitiesofMaio,CapeVerde,Mar.Stud.-MARS137 (2019).

[19]R.Dancette,J.-C.Brêthes,Ananalysisofactors’perceptionsofMaioisland’s(CapeVerde)marinegovernance,Mar.Policy 104(2019)177–197.

[20]L.Sébastien,Leterritoire,unsystèmesocio-patrimonialdécryptéparlemodèledel’Acteuren4Dimensions,NPSS10(1) (2014)283–330.

[21]DireçaoGeraldosRecursosMarinhosandPRAO-CV,PlanodeCogestaoPesqueiradaAssociaçaodosAtoresdeCogestaodos VindosdoSul,IlhadoMaio,TheWorldBank,2016,pp.96Editor.

[22]L.Parrott,etal.,Agents,individuals,andnetworks:modelingmethodstoinformnaturalresourcemanagementinregional landscapes,Ecol.Soc.17(3)(2012)32.

[23]C.R.Binder,etal.,Comparisonofframeworksforanalyzingsocial-ecologicalsystems,Ecol.Soc.18(4)(2013)19.

[24]H.M.Leslie,etal.,Operationalizingthesocial-ecologicalsystemsframeworktoassesssustainability,Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.

S.A.112(19)(2015)5979–5984.

[25]E.Ostrom,Copingwithtragediesofthecommons,Ann.Rev.Polit.Sci.2(1999)493–535.

[26]E.Ostrom,X.Basurto,Craftinganalyticaltoolstostudyinstitutionalchange,J.Inst.Econ.7(3)(2011)317–343.

[27]J.-P.Chanteau,A.Labrousse,L’institutionnalismeméthodologiqued’ElinorOstrom:quelquesenjeuxetcontroverses,Revue delarégulation14(2013)38(2esemestre/automne2013).

[28]B.Fine,Beyondthetragedyofthecommons:adiscussionofgoverningthecommons:theevolutionofinstitutionsfor collectiveaction,Perspect.Polit.8(2010)583–586.

[29]L.Sebastien,Quandlesacteurs faiblesetabsentss’immiscentdanslanégociation environnementale,Territoireen mouvement11(2011)17(Territoireetgouvernanceparticipative).

[30]L.Sébastien,F.Paran,L'Acteuren4Dimensionspouruneexplorationsocialeetpatrimonialedujeud'acteursterritorial,in:

É.Lavoisier(Ed.),Aideàladécisionpourl'aménagementduterritoire,Méthodesetoutils,HermèsSciencePublications, Paris,2006,pp.213–240.

[31]P.Leenhardt,etal.,Challenges,insightsandperspectivesassociatedwithusingsocial-ecologicalscienceformarine conservation,OceanCoast.Manag.115(2015)49–60.

[32]D.R.Armitage,etal.,Adaptiveco-managementforsocial-ecologicalcomplexity,Front.Ecol.Environ.7(2)(2008)95–101.