article · Land Use Policy
Decisions and practices in socio-ecological systems often yield sub-optimal results due to ongoing tensions between formal and informal institutions. Existing land use choices typically favour formal rules, while informal institutions often countervail them. Classic institutional theories have not yielded a unified framework that successfully merges these two forces to explain interdependent decision-making. Through a literature review, a theoretical path toward an institutional jelling construct is proposed. This model blends compatible provisions from both formal and informal arrangements, redefining actor constellations to establish resource management structures perceived as legitimate by all participants in socio-ecological systems.
Managing natural resources effectively requires rules that communities and authorities both respect. When formal policies ignore local traditions, conflicts and poor land management frequently follow. Developing a framework that harmonises formal laws with informal practices helps design governance systems that every stakeholder views as fair and legitimate.
This research is at an early conceptual stage, presenting a theoretical construct rather than an applied tool. It may eventually guide policy designers, land-use planners, and resource governance consultants in structuring legitimate management frameworks, but the abstract does not indicate any immediate commercial application or market-ready pathway.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
Institutional dynamics trigger resource management decisions and practices around socio-ecological systems (SESs), with (sub-) optimal management outcomes. For instance, studies show that formal institutions are continually prioritized over informal ones in land use decisions – the latter also countervailing the former in several instances. This reality presents an opportunity to theorize in favour of a new institutional arrangement that blends formal and informal institutional provisions. However, the theoretical positions of Hobbes, Ostrom, Ensminger, Cleaver, and Haller did not conclude with a jelled institutional framework , to enhance our understanding of the multiplicity of interdependent decisions within SESs. This raises two questions: (1) How could jelled institutional arrangements potentially (re)define actor constellations around SESs? (2) Which forward-looking research questions are required to analyse resource use and management by actors in SESs? We employ a theoretical research approach and a backward snowballing literature review to advance the search for a unifying theoretical perspective . In doing so, we theorize an institutional change path towards an institutional jelling construct – one in which compatible provisions of formal and informal institutions shape actors. This is done to create an institutional framework perceived as legitimate by all actors in SESs.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2025.107681
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
