Sustainability Science (2023) 18:11–26 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01121-2 SPECIAL FEATURE: REVIEW ARTICLE Networks of Action Situations in Social-Ecological Systems Research Networks of action situations: a systematic review of empirical research Christian Kimmich1,2 · Elizabeth Baldwin3 · Elke Kellner4 · Christoph Oberlack5,6 · Sergio Villamayor‑Tomas7 Received: 20 August 2021 / Accepted: 15 February 2022 / Published online: 11 March 2022 © The Author(s) 2022 Abstract “Action situations”—events, venues, or physically interdependent instances of decision-making—have become a central unit of analysis in the social–environmental sciences, particularly among scholars interested in bridging the social with the biophysical or ecological side of interdependent decisions. A growing body of empirical studies in social–ecological systems research has recently used case and comparative studies to analyse multiple interdependent action situations, structured into networks. In this article, we take stock of this body of empirical research, synthesize the diverse approaches that scholars have taken to assess “networks of action situations”, and identify fruitful paths forward. We conduct a systematic review of the empirical literature in the field, reviewing and summarizing the key characteristics of the empirical studies, including network features, topologies, methods, and data sources used in each case. We summarize and discuss the conceptualizations, methods, diagnostic procedures, and conclusions used in this body of work in a narrative framework synthesis. The review indicates that an increasingly coherent approach is taking shape, but a systematic, protocol-driven, or formalized approach is only partly emerging. We derive future research needs that could help accumulate knowledge from empirical research. Keywords Action situation · Situation-centred networks · Ecology of games · Polycentricity · Institutional analysis · Environmental governance Handled by Melf-Hinrich Ehlers, ETH Zürich, Switzerland. 3 * Christian Kimmich School of Government and Public Policy, University kimmich@ihs.ac.at; kimmich@fss.muni.cz of Arizona, 1145 E South Campus Dr #315, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA Elizabeth Baldwin 4 elizabethb@arizona.edu Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL, Zürcherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf, Elke Kellner Switzerland elke.kellner@wsl.ch 5 Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), University Christoph Oberlack of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, 3012 Bern, Switzerland christoph.oberlack@unibe.ch 6 Institute of Geography, University of Bern, Hallerstrasse 12, Sergio Villamayor‑Tomas 3012 Bern, Switzerland sergio.villamayor@uab.cat 7 Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), 1 Regional Science and Environmental Research, Institute Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain for Advanced Studies (IHS), Josefstädter Str. 39, 1080 Vienna, Austria 2 Department of Environmental Studies, Masaryk University, Jostova 10, 60200 Brno, Czech Republic 13 Vol.:(0123456789) 12 Sustainability Science (2023) 18:11–26 Introduction new perspective on social–ecological networks (Barnes et al. 2017; Bodin et al. 2019; Sayles et al. 2019). We com- We are in the midst of an ecological crisis with unprec- pare NAS with a closely related quantitative social–eco- edented impacts that are rapidly cumulating and accelerat- logical network approach (Angst et al. 2018; Mewhirter ing (Steffen et al. 2015). The manifestations of this crisis et al. 2018) in the “Discussion”. are often interrelated, as indicated by the growing number Only a decade old, NAS research is still in its early stages, of studies in the field of nexus research across sectors and however, and scholars are just beginning to develop the pro- domains (Villamayor-Tomas et al. 2015; Al-Saidi and Ela- tocols, scripts, formalization strategies, and related methods gib 2017; Kholod et al. 2021), geographical telecoupling that are needed to systematically study networks of interde- (Friis et al. 2016; Oberlack et al. 2018), and the interre- pendent ASs. This is different for the study of single ASs. lated nature of the Sustainable Development Goals (Breuer Scholarship relying on the AS perspective has grown rapidly et al. 2019; Kuenkel 2019; Reyers and Selig 2020). The in the last three decades, and this offers an opportunity to most recent example acknowledging cross-sectoral inter- build on this experience for knowledge accumulation. The dependence is the joint endeavour of the international pan- basic methodological toolkit needed to effectively and effi- els on climate change (IPCC) and biodiversity (IPBES), ciently describe and model ASs is relatively well-established which seeks to address some pivotal aspects of biodiver- and includes enormous shelves of game-theoretic models sity and climate change jointly (Pörtner et al. 2021). (Bowles 2004; Gintis 2009; Bruns 2015; Podimata and Yan- Integrated assessments currently draw on multiple nopoulos 2015; Madani 2010); the growing body of knowl- approaches for modelling complex systems. These diverse edge on situation archetypes (Bruns and Kimmich 2021); approaches include agent-based modelling, system dynam- related knowledge in social psychology (Kelley et al. 2003; ics, and related frameworks for complex adaptive systems Rauthmann et al. 2015); and the systematic study of multi- (Scholl 2001; An 2012; Schinko et al. 2017; Schlüter et al. level policy processes via formalized ASs (Schlager and 2017), as well as connectivity science and social–ecologi- Weible 2013; Di Gregorio et al. 2019), among others. cal network models (Janssen et al. 2006; Turnbull et al. The use of these tools can also be supported by a num- 2018; Bodin et al. 2019). Scholars increasingly acknowl- ber of situation-centred frameworks, each with different edge that governance processes are a fundamental part of emphases on rules, transactions, and processes (Ostrom such assessments (Peng et al. 2021). But despite signifi- et al. 1994; Scharpf 1997; Hagedorn 2008; Pahl-Wostl et al. cant progress in developing methods for studying polycen- 2010; Lejano and Stokols 2013), and methods of interdis- tric governance (Oberlack et al. 2018; Kimmich and Vil- ciplinary collaboration and model selection (Beckmann lamayor-Tomás 2019) and in modelling the behaviour of and Padmanabhan 2009; Poteete et al. 2010; Schlüter et al. policy actors within governance systems (Mewhirter et al. 2017). These frameworks have already provided an orienta- 2018), methods to operationalize and model the underly- tion for many studies that we systematically review in this ing governance structures and processes remain nascent. article. They also provide a pathway for consolidating NAS In this article, we review these recent efforts, with approaches. particular emphasis on what we term situation-centred Due to the growing number and diversity of research on approaches that focus on multiple interdependent instances NAS, it is now time to review the conceptualizations, meth- of interdependent decision making, called Action Situa- ods, and results. This is the purpose of the present review. tions (ASs) (Sendzimir et al. 2010; McGinnis 2011). The We aim to provide an orientation for future research. We Networks of Action Situations (NAS) approach, originat- review existing studies to identify how these studies con- ing from common-pool resource governance scholarship, ceive of ASs and the relationships between them, what is useful for unpacking multiple, interrelated biophysical, frameworks and methods have been used, and what lessons economic, and political decision-making situations, and were learned. We review key characteristics of each study, assessing how these ASs jointly produce outcomes. This including the conceptualization of ASs, efforts to formal- approach has the potential to reveal biophysical, techno- ize the NAS, the methods used for network descriptions logical, and ecological interdependencies and their coevo- and data sources, and any network features and topologies. lution with social processes (Kimmich 2013; Grundmann We also review the theoretical conclusions drawn from the and Ehlers 2016), inspires procedures for model develop- empirical research. Synthesizing across these studies, we ment, for example in agent-based modelling, among oth- identify common grounds and promising avenues for future ers (Schlüter et al. 2019), and helps to trace the dynamic NAS research. effects of polycentric governance on biophysical processes We find that while there is already substantial coherence and vice versa (Oberlack et al. 2018; Kimmich and Vil- among a sub-set of the identified studies, other studies have lamayor-Tomás 2019). The NAS approach also yields a contributed important aspects, perspectives, and methods that can extend the NAS approach considerably. The NAS 13 Sustainability Science (2023) 18:11–26 13 approach has so far been applied in very flexible and creative also help to capture less formal and less structured situations ways. This case sensitivity contributes to the development that are not easily amenable to game-theoretic modelling. of the approach and helps to avoid panacea traps (Ostrom To systematically describe ASs, the Institutional Analysis and Cox 2010) but also prevents comparability. This review and Development (IAD) framework was initially developed should help to find a balance between those two goals. A by Elinor Ostrom and colleagues while studying systems for more consistent reporting of network approaches used in the sustainable governance of common-pool resources (CPRs). field helps to learn from and build on or depart from others’ Unlike many public policy problems that are regulated by a procedures. We need a checklist, procedure, or protocol for particular government agency, sustainably governed CPRs NAS research, analogous to agent-based modelling (Müller are often managed at the local level by groups of resource et al. 2013) or experimental research (Rommel 2015), for users (Ostrom et al. 1994). The terms and concepts that pol- example, so that all aspects of the social–ecological NAS icy analysts traditionally use to describe regulation by state analysis are explicitly considered and reported. agencies thus often do not adequately describe the diversity The next section introduces foundational concepts, of these self-governance arrangements. CPR users collec- including the Action Situation (AS) and related frameworks, tively decide how much of the resource each user can appro- and derives a series of operational questions we pose to the priate, establish systems for monitoring users’ compliance literature. The subsequent section introduces the review with these limits, and develop appropriate conflict resolution methods and the data extraction steps followed by which mechanisms (ibid.). Each of these decision instances can the results addressing the operational questions are pre- represent one AS. While developed for the study of small- sented. The final section discusses the results considering scale CPRs, the IAD provides a basic language and set of the research needs and potential directions ahead. concepts and tools that can be used in virtually any policy and biophysical operational setting. It has been used across a wide array of domains and by scholars from across the social Consolidating situation‑centred network sciences, as the identified studies in our review demonstrate. research The IAD has become particularly appealing for studying complex governance in today’s “networked, multisector, no- Within any empirical NAS research, the AS is the core unit one-wholly-in-charge’ public sector” (Bryson 2004; Baldwin of analysis. ASs are fundamental building blocks of any gov- et al. 2019), and are increasingly used to study polycentric ernance system. ASs occur within a biophysical and socio- governance (McGinnis 2011). economic context. ASs also occur at multiple levels: the One of the underlying goals of the IAD framework has operational level, where individuals make day-to-day deci- been to enable analysts to diagnose problems in unsustain- sions; the collective choice level, where groups of actors able social-ecological systems. Scholars in the IAD tradi- make shared policy decisions; and at the constitutional tion often reject the idea of panaceas like centralization or level, where groups of actors determine the overarching decentralization, and instead focus on understanding what rules that shape how decisions will be made (Ostrom et al. institutional arrangements communities have developed to 1994). Within any AS, individual actors transact and become solve particular problems, and assess how those institutional interdependent (Hagedorn 2008), interact with others, share arrangements are contributing to sustainable resource use information, and undertake actions based on their own (per- (Ostrom and Cox 2010). In all but the simplest of govern- ceived) self-interest, a common concern (Vatn 2005; Brom- ance arrangements, such diagnosis requires the analysts to ley 2006), habituated behaviour (Hodgson 2004), or prac- identify multiple ASs that collectively shape resource use or tices (Welch and Yates 2018). other policy outcomes of interest. The interactions are shaped by rules that determine the The idea that multiple ASs could be considered nodes scope of the AS, who can participate, what role(s) each within a broader governance network was first developed actor plays, how information is shared, what actions can as a model in the Management and Transition Framework be taken, the costs and benefits of those actions, and how (MTF) and used to study regime transitions within river individual preferences are aggregated to produce final deci- basins (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2010; Sendzimir et al. 2010). The sions and outcomes. This idea of ASs draws strongly from MTF focuses on sequences of ASs, where the institutional, game theory, which formalises social interactions as (stra- knowledge, or operational outcome of one AS affects subse- tegic or evolutionary) decisions with interdependent payoff quent ASs in a process-oriented manner. McGinnis (2011) structures (Ostrom et al. 1994). The potential applications developed a more explicitly network-based approach to are at least as diverse as the game-theoretic models that have NAS by extending the IAD framework to show relationships been developed in the last decades for probably any relevant between multiple ASs that jointly produce governance out- formalizable AS one can imagine, including situation arche- comes, and also highlighted the relation to a more qualita- types (e.g., Bruns and Kimmich 2021), but AS frameworks tive sociological literature on the Ecology of Games, dating 13 14 Sustainability Science (2023) 18:11–26 back to Long (1958). McGinnis recognized that multiple these studies are actor-focused rather than AS focused, ASs could affect each other both within and across govern- they observe and model relationships between ASs only ance levels. For example, within a fishery, there may be an through links with individual actors. Because these studies AS in which fishers establish take limits, another in which do not directly model the full set of ASs or the relation- they make catch decisions, another in which each fisher’s ships between them, they are excluded from our review, compliance is monitored, and still another in which conflicts although we further address the relationship between actor- are resolved. ASs that affect other ASs or that jointly affect centred bipartite and situation-centred NAS approaches in outcomes are considered adjacent to one another and are part the “Discussion”. of a larger network of ASs. Thus, the purpose of this article is to review and syn- In McGinnis’s initial conception, ASs are distinguished thesize existing studies using the NAS approach, with the by governance tasks, such as appropriation, monitoring, con- goal of identifying common concepts and exploring diverse flict resolution, and finance. They are linked when the out- methods for the study of NASs. We have conducted a sys- come of one AS affects an input to another AS. Subsequent tematic review to identify all relevant studies and coded works by Kimmich (2013), Kimmich and Villamayor-Tomás them to better understand the way that each conceptualizes (2019), and Baldwin and Tang (2021) have developed this ASs; boundaries of networks of ASs; and the nature of links initial conceptual approach by formalizing the conditions between ASs. We also coded the research designs, methods, under which ASs are considered adjacent, disaggregating and data sources that different studies have used. Based on ASs into working components, and articulating the nature of this analysis, we distilled insights and developed a narrative links between ASs. For example, ASs may be linked through synthesis to inform future uses of the NAS approach. institutions, information flows, common participants, or bio- Accordingly, we have structured our review to focus on physical conditions, for example when one AS results in three key themes: (1) An overview of the empirical context, laws, rules, or plans that shape what happens in another AS including the domains covered and governance levels stud- (Kimmich 2013; Kimmich and Villamayor-Tomás 2019). ied; (2) An overview of the conceptual approaches taken in Because of these links, ASs are often interdependent the literature, including the frameworks used and approaches and connected. In some cases, this interdependence occurs to conceiving of nodes and links; and (3) A summary of the within a single sector as in the fishery example, where inter- methodological approaches used, including research designs, dependence among various fishery-related ASs jointly pro- data sources, and methods used to define or identify nodes duces sectoral outcomes. In other cases, this interdepend- and links. Based on our review, we assess the potential of ence can span sectoral boundaries, for example, when ASs NAS and related Ecology of Game approaches for modelling in the energy sector are linked to ASs in the water sector governance systems and, ultimately, analysing polycentric through shared resources (Kimmich and Villamayor-Tomás governance in complex social–ecological systems. 2019). In many instances, AS interdependence can also span governance levels—as is often the case in federalist govern- ance systems, where policy decisions are often made within Review method and data ASs at higher governance levels and then implemented in ASs at lower governance levels (Baldwin and Tang 2021). We conducted a systematic review, as the number of The institutionalist and situation-centred approaches are empirical studies has increased significantly in recent not the only entry point for the study of complex govern- years and the boundaries of the literature are relatively ance networks, however. The development and use of social well defined (see, e.g., Sovacool et al. 2018), and one network analysis (SNA) methods for studying social-eco- objective has been to include all relevant empirical studies. logical governance arrangements has burgeoned in recent An important characteristic of systematic reviews is their years (Bodin and Prell 2011; Barnes et al. 2017; Bodin et al. replicability. We use the ROSES protocol for systematic 2019). Early SNA studies typically focused on individual reviews (Haddaway et al. 2018) as a guide to report all actors as nodes within a network, often surveying policy steps taken in identifying and selecting the relevant lit- actors to identify ties between actors and using those ties erature. Building on our own empirical work and related to depict a network of social relationships among policy literature reviews, we started by creating a list of key actors. More recently, the field has embraced bipartite net- words to identify all relevant literature streams. We then works, which include two different types of nodes—actors conducted a keyword search in both Web of Science (WoS) and policy venues—and construct networks by analysing and Scopus, using the identified key words within the fol- ties between actors and policy venues (Lubell et al. 2014; lowing search string: “ALL (“action situation”) AND ALL Angst et al. 2018). Such studies recognize that social net- (network) AND ALL (institution) AND ALL (link* OR works are produced by an underlying set of linked insti- adjacent OR connect*)”. We included the terms “link”, tutional arrangements (e.g., underlying ASs), but because “adjacent”, or “connect”, because we wanted to identify 13 Sustainability Science (2023) 18:11–26 15 studies that focus on relationships between ASs, but stud- Results: common concepts, empirical ies currently use a range of terms to denote these relation- context, recurring methods ships. Given the relatively short tradition of NAS research, we did not constrain our search to a specific time-period. The number of publications that conceive of or assess net- WoS and Scopus have good coverage of peer reviewed work relationships between ASs has grown rapidly over the scientific journals, but have less coverage of grey literature last decade (see Fig. 1a). In addition to our specific keywords (e.g., as compared to Google Scholar). We did not consider and search string, we also conducted a search of all publica- this to be a problem, given the rather academic orientation tions that used the term ‘action situation’ in Scopus (again, of our analysis and the existing literature in the field. In without year restrictions). This resulted in 584 papers and a Scopus, this search resulted in 155 relevant papers (date clear upward trend that shows a fivefold increase of publica- accessed WoS and Scopus: July 23rd 2020). Drawing from tions over the last two decades (see Fig. 1b). earlier literature reviews, as covered in our own empirical Out of the 155 articles that matched our search string, research publications, we assessed comprehensiveness of we selected only those that had an explicit focus on NAS the results. according to the three selection criteria set out in the meth- Next, we narrowed this initial pool to include only stud- odology (see Fig. 2). This produced a subset of 23 articles. ies that (a) have empirically examined ASs as a unit of As shown in Fig. 2, criterion 2 was the most limiting. analysis, and (b) address relationships between ASs. To 23 of the 35 studies that fulfilled this criterion also fulfilled do this, we read each study’s abstract and applied three the other two criteria. Criterion 1, on the contrary, was the selection and inclusion criteria. First, we checked whether least limiting. Only about 37% of the studies that fulfilled AS or an analogous concept was used as a unit of analy- this criterion also fulfilled the other two. Some studies used sis, implying the study of interdependent decision-making. network concepts and explicitly studied some network links To be included in the study, a conceptual framework that (criterion 3) but did not study ASs as a unit of analysis (cri- demonstrated a study of ASs had to be present, including terion 1). While 29 studies fulfilled criterion 1 and 2, 6 of the IAD framework, MTF, IoS or game theory, among these studies did not include an explicit analysis of links others. Second, the article had to empirically examine at between ASs. As a result, we systematically coded only 23 least two interrelated ASs. Studies could be empirical or studies, although the “Discussion” section also reflects on conceptual with an empirical illustration, but we excluded the contributions of the other subsets that only fulfilled two all purely theoretical or conceptual contributions from the criteria, including non-empirical contributions. analysis. Third, the article had to consider links or rela- The following provides a brief descriptive summary of tionships between ASs explicitly. When the abstract was the empirical domains, the conceptual frameworks used, not sufficiently detailed to answer all three questions, we and some basic patterns of the studied NAS, including also reviewed the main body of the paper. network properties. Insights of the 23 coded papers which In relation to our review objectives (“Consolidat- are not covered in the results and discussion sections, are ing situation-centred network research”), we developed a summarized in the Electronic Supplementary Material S2. codebook (Table 1). The elaboration of the book followed several steps. First, we collectively developed a series of general questions and categories inquiring about the general Empirical contexts studied approach to the NAS, the methods used, main results and main conclusions. Then we collectively reviewed five studies Most of the studies have focused on natural resources and for further re-iteration of the initial categories. This resulted related technologies, including water, river basins, and in a set of codes as shown in Table 1. irrigation; oil, gas, and renewable energies and related The subsequent results section provides a description energy infrastructures, including pipelines; food systems covering all categories, including references to the supple- and agriculture; landscapes and biodiversity; fish and mentary information, where a detailed coverage in the article marine resources; and tourism and urbanization questions. would have been too long. The discussion follows a narra- As expected, many studies spanned multiple sectors and tive framework synthesis (Haddaway et al. 2018). Building empirical domains, but almost half of the studies focused on the coded results for each included empirical paper, we on one sector only, particularly among studies on water or proposed key insights for each of the categories listed in energy governance and related infrastructure. Only two the codebook and collectively selected the most relevant papers focused on contexts outside the social-environmen- ones. Accordingly, the “Discussion” section only covers the tal sciences, one on civic engagement in public service major findings and themes based on our own evaluation of delivery (Weise et al. 2017), and the other on childcare the literature. (Bushouse 2011). 13 16 Sustainability Science (2023) 18:11–26 Table 1  Codebook for the NAS case study review including categories and guiding questions Category Codea Guiding questions Empirical context Sector(s), domains, issues Which sector(s), domains, or issues are studied? Conceptual approaches Conceptual frame Which conceptual frameworks are used or related/inte- grated? Research question What are the paper’s research questions (including empirical and non-empirical questions)? AS nodes and links Which types of nodes (vertices) and links (edges) are addressed? How are they conceptualized? Methodological approaches Research design Which overall research design is used in the study? Data gathering Which data sources are used in the study? AS nodes and links What methods and data sources are used to empirically identify AS nodes and links? AS boundaries, NAS boundaries What methods and data sources are used to empirically identify boundaries of individual ASs or boundaries of the network? NAS description and analysis Which methodological approaches are used to describe and analyse the network? Results NAS size: Number of different ASs/AS types Which ASs are considered? Are ASs classified/catego- rized? How many? Level of ASs Which levels of ASs are considered? Actor size of the network: Number of actors/types Which actors are considered? Are actors classified/cat- egorized? How many? Link size of the network: Number of links between ASs How many links (edges) between ASs are considered? Node size of the network: Number of nodes / ASs How many nodes (vertices) are considered? Names of the ASs Is there a logic behind the names? Inductive / deductive and setting / context Outcome(s) Is there one focal outcome or are multiple outcomes relevant for the evaluative criteria? Evaluative criteria Which evaluative criteria are considered? Conclusion Further research questions What further research questions, if any, were identified? Limitations What limitations, if any, are identified relative to this study’s analysis, or related to the study of NASs more broadly? Important contribution What important contributions does this article make to the study of NASs? a Note that codes can appear in multiple categories. AS links, for example, are both coded conceptually, as well as methodologically Fig. 1  a Number of new publications per year identified by the search string. b Number of publications per year identified by the string “action situation”: yields 584 results in Scopus (accessed 23rd of July 2020) 13 Sustainability Science (2023) 18:11–26 17 For example, Therville et al. (2019) identify resource users, infrastructure providers, and infrastructures as aspects of ASs that can be linked to each other. Knieper et al. (2010) identify ASs, institutions, and knowledge as objects that can be linked to each other. Heikkila and Weible (2018) identify actors and rules as potential nested nodes within ASs. Kim- mich (2013) and Kimmich and Villamayor-Tomás (2019) disaggregate ASs into “working components” that include institutions, biophysical resources/conditions, information, and actors, although these are not explicitly identified as nodes. Similarly, most of the papers reviewed do not use techni- cal network or graph-theoretic terms, and instead approach the idea of ‘links’ from working components of ASs or an inductive empirical approach to interdependencies. In these papers, links are often conceived in terms of ‘strategic inter- actions’ (Therville et al. 2019), interdependencies, or the presence of externalities between ASs (Mewhirter et al. 2018). Several papers identify links that occur when the out- put of a collective choice AS produces rules that structure an Fig. 2  Empirical NAS publications identified following three selec- operational AS (Bushouse 2011; Carter et al. 2015). While tion criteria, resulting in a sub-set of 23 studies out of 155 results of our search string these papers help to develop the idea of links between ASs conceptually, it is clear that the literature is not yet at a point where links are defined or classified in a way that facilitates Most studies covered only one governance level, pre- systematic operationalization and computational approaches dominantly the subnational level, but there are also some to network analysis (Cox 2014). multi-level studies, including multi-level infrastructures In fact, the literature has yet to settle on a common (Kimmich 2013; Cox 2014), cross-boundary rivers and pipe- approach for classifying or conceiving of links between lines (Sendzimir et al. 2010; Gritsenko 2018), telecoupling ASs. Six papers have classified links based on which types relations (Boillat et al. 2018; Oberlack et al. 2018), and value of nodes are connected. The most common approach fol- chains (Villamayor-Tomas et al. 2015). lows the IAD framework closely by disaggregating indi- vidual ASs into working components such as institutions, Conceptual approaches used actors, biophysical conditions, and information, and then classifying links by the type of working components that Most studies used the rules-oriented IAD (Ostrom et al. are connected (Kimmich 2013; Gritsenko 2018; Kimmich 1994), the process-oriented MTF (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2010), and Villamayor-Tomás 2019; Edelmann et al. 2020). Ober- or the transactions-oriented Institutions-of-Sustainability lack et al. (2018) take a similar approach to identify links (IoS) framework (Hagedorn 2008) to structure the study of between other properties of social–ecological systems, ASs. Only four cases employed game-theoretic models to including information, rights, access, capital, duties, legiti- describe and analyse ASs. macy, biofuel demand and supply. These papers tend to view As might be expected for a series of papers focused on links as occurring between same-type components of con- the NAS approach, most papers conceive of ASs or games nected ASs. One paper draws on the robustness framework as the primary nodes in their network analysis (Kimmich (Anderies et al. 2007) to consider the possibility that there 2013; Oberlack et al. 2018; Gritsenko 2018; Kimmich and may be links between different-type components within a Villamayor-Tomás 2019; Therville et al. 2019; Möck et al. single AS, for example links between resource users and 2019; Edelmann et al. 2020). Several papers did not use the resource systems (Therville et al. 2019). term ‘action situation’ explicitly, although mentioning the A very small number of papers have attempted to go term in the body of the text, but identified nodes with con- beyond simply identifying links to discuss how those ASs ceptually overlapping terms, such as policy forums, events, are linked and to define, classify or describe the characteris- or meetings (Weise et al. 2017; Mewhirter et al. 2018). tics of links in additional ways. Kimmich (2013), Kimmich Whereas ASs are the primary nodes, some also disag- and Villamayor-Tomás (2019), and Mewhirter et al. (2018) gregate ASs into subcomponents in ways that suggest that identify directionality and strength as important proper- these subcomponents could conceivably be ‘sub-nodes’. ties of links. Möck et al. (2019) define links as flows of 13 18 Sustainability Science (2023) 18:11–26 resources, rules, and information, implying directionality of sources were interviews, document analysis and secondary links. Carter et al. (2015) and Bushouse (2011) implicitly data (Fig. 3b). discuss the directionality of influence when outcomes of one Identifying NASs implies delineating the boundaries of AS become the rules that govern another AS. Heikkila and ASs and their links. We find that previous studies adopted Weible (2018) derive links by examining the components one of six different ways to delineate the boundaries of ASs of institutional statements using the Institutional Grammar (Fig. 3c, cf. Oberlack et al. 2018). They can be grouped into Tool; here, they use the rule deontics such as “must” “may” two types of approaches. First, seven studies (31%) adopted or “may not” to characterize links. an inductive approach to identify social interactions that exert causal influence on the outcome or phenomenon of Methods used interest. Often, these studies used process tracing methods (Beach and Pedersen 2016) to explain how and why cer- NAS research has employed a variety of very different tain social interactions (in ASs) contributed to an outcome. methods. The identified studies have adopted the NAS The other set of studies mobilized a predefined concept to approach either to develop a new method or model (44%) identify ASs. For example, four studies (17%) identified or for empirical purposes (Fig. 3a). In their research design, ASs around the use or governance of different resource the authors adopted NAS for single, comparative, or multi- systems such as water, energy, food, coastal areas, or land site case studies as well as regional assessments. Main data systems. Three (13%) mobilized governance functions, Fig. 3  a Research designs and b data sources in NAS research; c ple sources (n = 23 studies). The underlying coding results and related links among ASs; d identifying the boundaries of ASs; e character- article references are available in Electronic Supplementary Material izing the NAS. Note: for data sources, a single study can report multi- table S1 13 Sustainability Science (2023) 18:11–26 19 such as rulemaking, monitoring, or sanctioning, to identify example, adding a collective choice AS where rules of provi- ASs. Two characterize ASs along established jurisdictional sion or appropriation are endogenously adopted (Zikos et al. boundaries such as municipal, district, and country levels, 2010). More generally, such collective choice situations can and two other studies frame ASs around the multiple steps help analysts to understand the effects of endogenous institu- in value chains. One study (4%) identified ASs based on tional change (Rommel 2015; Yu and Kasymov 2020). The statements within policy text about the policy’s intended study of such AS dyads and triads helps to systematically outcomes (Carter et al. 2015). The other four (17%) did not identify and study their dynamics within a larger NAS, as have an explicit approach for delineating boundaries of the well as to unpack the way that additional ASs may affect NAS. relationships within AS dyads of interest. There are different ways to identify links between ASs. A key motivation for this systematic review was the The studies that mobilize an inductive approach to identify observation that although researchers have studied opera- the boundaries of ASs typically also utilize process trac- tional, collective, and constitutional choice situations, ing to identify the links between ASs (Fig. 3d). Most other researchers frequently neglect adjacent situations at the same studies depicted hypothesized effects or characterized links governance level (McGinnis 2011). Our review shows that according to a literature- or framework-driven conceptual the empirical NAS literature has clearly addressed this short- terminology. One study understands links as between actors, coming, as all studies cover at least two ASs at the same rather than ASs, and distinguishes between interactions that governance level. This focus appears to have come at the occur entirely within one location (AS) versus those that cost of neglecting the constitutional choice level, however. occur across multiple locations (Cox 2014). Notably, a Among the reviewed body of NAS research, only three have large share (31%) of the studies are not explicit about their extended their network analysis to all three choice levels approach to identifying links between ASs. (Knieper et al. 2010; Bushouse 2011; Möck et al. 2019). Studies describe the resulting NAS in different ways. The Most studies (40%) capture operational and collective levels clear majority (61%) describes the NAS through a figure or (Table S2). stylised graph that relates the ASs, including ties between Collective choice ASs often exist in hierarchical relation- ASs, and summarizes the actors, interactions, and outcomes ships with operational level ASs, but analysts interested in of each AS. Few studies mobilized more formalized ways hierarchies and power relations between ASs can also con- to characterize the network, such as through game-theoretic sider relationships within a single governance level, because models or set-theoretic configurations of AS equilibrium the outcome of one AS may affect the working components outcome states (Fig. 3e). of another AS. With the multiple direct and indirect links between ASs, the NAS approach has the potential to capture Network size and governance levels covered the hierarchies and diverse ‘heterarchies’ (Cumming 2016) in situation-centred networks, including polycentric, but The number of identified ASs ranges from two to as many also pyramidal properties of different networks. None of the as 50 (Boillat et al. 2018), with five to seven ASs being the reviewed studies have addressed these more general network most frequent network size (see Table S2 in the Online Sup- patterns so far. This leads us to the major open questions and plementary Material). The study of relationships between research needs identified in our review. two ASs is common in CPR research. For example, several scholars have studied dyadic relationships between infra- structure provision and appropriation ASs in river water Discussion use for irrigation (Janssen et al. 2011). Another example captures grazing and alps maintenance as situations of Common ground for situation‑centred networks appropriation and provision (Baur and Binder 2013). In a water–energy–food nexus example, solving a coordina- The diverse existing approaches to studying ASs and NAS tion problem of energy-efficient technology adoption helps described above provide rich material for cumulative knowl- solving a dilemma of electricity infrastructure overuse for edge generation. All studies build on existing AS frame- irrigation (Kimmich and Sagebiel 2016). In such cases, works (IAD, IoS, MTF), which provide a common language the two situations are connected in multiple ways: physi- and set of concepts (types of rules, types of transactions, cal proximity, shared actors, and information conveyed levels of action, etc.) that are applicable across a wide range from one situation to the other. The outcomes of irrigation of settings and compatible with a diverse range of qualitative infrastructure provision, for example, affect the dynamics in and quantitative analytical methods. Frameworks provide a the water appropriation situation. These dynamic relation- basis for communicating and agreeing on the common build- ships can look significantly different, however, if the analyst ing blocks, facilitate the use of multiple analytical methods adds a third AS to generate a triadic network structure—for (Beckmann and Padmanabhan 2009), enable collaboration 13 20 Sustainability Science (2023) 18:11–26 across disciplines (Poteete et al. 2010), and structure meta- While it might be appealing to settle on a single ‘best studies to further consolidate knowledge (Villamayor-Tomas practice’ for defining AS boundaries, this may be premature et al. 2020). given the relatively early stages of development of NAS as a concept with related methods, as well as the enormous range of potential ASs that are relevant for study. That said, such Nodes, links, and the boundaries of situations development and cross-feeding will probably work best if and networks scholars are both creative in their approach and transpar- ent about the choices they make—and the justifications for Nonetheless, there are challenges and barriers to knowledge those choices. consolidation that need to be addressed for this literature to The above also applies to the choice of network bounda- move forward. First, there is considerable diversity in the ries. Like SNA, NAS research must be explicit about the terms used for studying NASs. Connected ASs (Pahl-Wostl boundaries of the network (Kimmich 2013; Oberlack et al. et al. 2013), networked ASs (Moser et al. 2019), adjacent 2018; Kimmich and Villamayor-Tomás 2019). In general, ASs (McGinnis 2011), or linked ASs (Sendzimir et al. 2010; the network can be developed by either identifying those Kimmich 2013) all constitute a network, albeit with different ASs that are considered relevant from a theoretical per- emphases on the biophysical and social side of connectiv- spective (Schlüter et al. 2019), or by selecting those that ity, and currently unspecified graph-theoretical properties. are considered relevant with regards to problem, research While this diversity of terms is not itself a barrier to knowl- objective or stakeholders’ outcome(s) of interest (Kimmich edge accumulation, these different terms are often associated 2013; Kellner and Brunner 2021). with unstated assumptions about what are the key compo- nents of the networks and what is the nature of the links NAS as a complex Ecology of Games between those components. All articles reviewed study connectivity within complex It is helpful to compare NAS research with other Ecology networks, addressing both structure (network architecture of Games approaches and prominent sets of methods for of ASs) and process (interactions between ASs), providing systematic analysis of complex governance arrangements, analysts with a range of ways to conceptualize links between which have not been identified by our systematic literature ASs, actors, institutions, and biophysical systems. The NAS search. These approaches are analogous and complementary approach accounts for social ties, institutional links, and stra- in many ways, although they tend to rest on different theo- tegic linking via actors, among others. This body of research retical assumptions. They also differ in terms of methodo- would benefit from clear conceptual development about the logical development: whereas NAS research is nascent and range of nodes and links that can be studied within a NAS. remains characterized by a diversity of approaches to con- Indeed, studies diverge in whether and how ASs are ceptualize nodes and links, there is a growing body of Ecol- defined as nodes in the network. The reviewed studies vary ogy of Games studies that use a fairly standardized approach considerably, for example, in the degree to which they disag- to conceptualizing nodes and ties, as well as a precise graph- gregate or aggregate ASs. Some of them conceive of ASs theoretic formalization as bipartite networks (Angst et al. broadly, defining AS boundaries by sector or jurisdiction, 2018; Mewhirter et al. 2018). Below, we make explicit while others disaggregate sectors into ASs defined by spe- some of the similarities and differences between these two cific governance functions (Kimmich and Villamayor-Tomás approaches to the Ecology of Games, with a goal of help- 2019), stages in a value chain (Villamayor-Tomas et al. ing analysts better understand the underlying conceptual 2015; Grundmann and Ehlers 2016), or social interactions foundations and assumptions that underlie each approach. that cause particular outcomes (Kimmich 2013; Oberlack Another strand of literature that draws on the Ecology of et al. 2018). This diversity in approaches to AS nodes has Games analogy (Long 1958), which is more qualitative in implications for the way links are operationalized since, nature (Dutton and Mäkinen 1987; Dutton et al. 2012), or for example, sectors are likely to be linked in very different uses descriptive three-mode networks (Cornwell et al. 2003), ways than governance functions or stages in a value chain. will not be discussed here. The way that ASs and links are conceived also shapes the In bipartite network studies, two types of nodes exist: analysts’ choices about data and methods. When ASs are actors and policy venues. Venues include policy forums and conceived as (formal) jurisdiction processes, for example, meetings. Networks are generally conceived as a bipartite data will likely be collected at the chosen jurisdictional graph, where actors have direct ties with policy venues, and level, and the analyst may not seek out data sources at other indirect ties with other actors that participate in those ven- governance levels. When ASs are conceived as governance ues. This allows Ecology of Games analysts to define an functions, in contrast, there may be a more diverse array of actor-centred policy network that tracks the way that actors data sources and potential methods of analysis needed. engage with different policy venues. This formalization 13 Sustainability Science (2023) 18:11–26 21 provides rigorous methods and reproducible insights, par- of actors participating in multiple policy venues and can ticularly about how actors navigate complex governance provide significant insight into the relationships and behav- systems through their participation in multiple forums. iours of policy actors within those networks. It has most NAS research differs from the bipartite network approach often been applied within networks of watershed associa- in several ways. First, while both approaches have the poten- tions whose interdependence is largely based on joint actors’ tial to treat ASs as nodes, the bipartite network focuses its participation. The NAS approach, in contrast, can be used to attention on policy venues—forums in which policy actors examine the way that networks of interdependent ASs struc- gather to make collective decisions, coordinate, or share ture complex governance arrangements, even if those ASs information. While policy venues are critically important are connected through rule systems, shared infrastructure, ASs in many social–ecological systems, they are one subset or shared biophysical conditions, rather than through joint of a broader range of ASs that make up any complex govern- participation by a similar set of actors. The NAS approach ance arrangement. In many operational, biophysical, or eco- thus offers potential for examining complex governance in logical ASs, actors do not necessarily meet in the same place hierarchical, multi-level, or cross-sectoral contexts, where at the same time but are part of an AS nonetheless because actors’ participation in forums may not be the main source their actions are interdependent. Rarely covered in bipartite of interdependence among ASs. Perhaps because the NAS network approaches but important are also constitutional approach embraces a wider range of potential ASs and rela- choice ASs, such as the courts. The NAS approach, in con- tionships between them, it is not currently defined by a sin- trast, considers a wider range of ASs that might potentially gle methodological approach, but rather a range of different contribute to important policy or governance outcomes— ways and models that analysts might use to conceive of ASs including legislative, regulatory, judicial, or private sector and links between them. ASs that might not typically be seen as policy venues or even bring actors together simultaneously, but that might Towards methodological good practices in NAS nonetheless play an important role in structuring the broader research governance system. Along with this more diverse conception of ASs, the NAS NAS analysis can follow different methodological proto- approach requires scholars to assess the characteristics of cols, depending on research needs and methods. In the more ASs more explicitly. NAS scholars often differentiate among inductive, case-driven approach to NAS research, the pro- ASs based on governance levels, governance tasks, or stages cess-tracing methodology provides researchers with estab- in the supply chain—crucial differences between ASs that lished good-practice standards (Beach and Pedersen 2016). are less critical when policy venues are the primary AS of These standards include triangulation of data sources, test- interest. ing of alternative hypotheses, and independent verification. Finally, and perhaps most critically, bipartite network Process tracing seeks to explain causal effects by tracing studies are actor-focused, and rest on an underlying assump- outcomes to explanatory conditions and mechanisms. Here, tion that ASs are linked to one another primarily through the specific analytical approach of NAS and its theoretical actors that participate in more than one policy forum. The foundation in the IAD offers the analyst a heuristic, sense- NAS approach, in contrast, conceives of ASs that are inter- making lens to trace outcomes to the situations of interde- dependent in a wider range of ways: ties other than via actors pendent decision-making and the institutional, biophysical, exist between ASs. In some cases, the nature of these ties and socio-economic–cultural–political conditions that shape may imply a hierarchical set of relationships, for example, these situations. In the words of process tracing, ASs entail when the outcomes of one AS determine the structure of the causal mechanisms explaining outcomes. The inductive another AS. Since bipartite network studies conceive of approach offers conceptual flexibility to tailor explanations policy venues as linked through participation by shared to the particular context of a study. However, this idiosyn- actors, they have less frequently examined or highlighted crasy may limit replicability of results in NAS research and institutional, information, biophysical, or other types of links bias results to the subjective insights of the analyst. Thus, between policy venues, or considered the range of interde- cumulative learning is needed about causally similar NAS pendent relationships that might occur as a result. cases. To summarize, both the bipartite network and the NAS The deductive, concept-driven approach to NAS may approaches to the Ecology of Games capture important facilitate such cumulative learning because the researcher aspects of complex governance structures and processes, but mobilizes an additional concept or theory to specify bounda- the two approaches are based on different assumptions, and ries and expected links of ASs, such as concepts of value they are thus useful for answering different sets of questions. chains, governance functions, or the water-energy-food The bipartite network approach provides a robust set of well- nexus. Via AS frameworks, the NAS approach can also add defined methods for examining policy networks comprised an institutional and game-theoretic rooting of these concepts. 13 22 Sustainability Science (2023) 18:11–26 As mentioned above, the creativity of scholars in devel- different cooperation and coordination structures of ASs oping NAS analyses should be accompanied by efforts to (Kimmich and Villamayor-Tomás 2019) and a periodic table guarantee replicability. While we recognize that multiple of elementary situations (Bruns and Kimmich 2021). Con- approaches are useful for the field, reporting of any NAS cerning links, most studies have tended to give priority to study should certainly cover how the analyst identified, information, operational, and institutional links, but actor analysed, and verified (a) boundaries of ASs; (b) the links links also appear crucial, as the bipartite network approach between the ASs; and (c) the boundaries and features of the to the Ecology of Games demonstrates. Regarding the entire network of ASs. The results of our systematic coding boundary specification challenge (see previous subsection), have shown that several studies did not explicitly address promising ways forward include best practices for stake- all these aspects (see Table S2). The guiding questions of holder analysis (Reed et al. 2009) and SNA (Prell 2012). our codebook provide a checklist of questions that need to The authors reviewed here point to the potential of com- be answered when conducting a NAS study to ensure that bining the NAS approach with other frameworks and the- all aspects are considered. Our checklist (see Table 1) is oretical approaches to solve the above operational issues. preliminary and can be tailored to different research methods Villamayor-Tomas et al. (2015), Grundmann and Ehlers for studying NASs. (2016), and Carlson and Bitsch (2018), for example, show A frequent reference to describe ASs is the IAD frame- the potential of using value chain frameworks as a means to work. For example, the IAD’s 7-rule typology helps to guide the identification of ASs (e.g., stages along the chain characterize ASs through seven components: actors, posi- and across chains); Oberlack et al. (2018) and Boillat et al. tions, choices, information, control, outcomes, benefits and (2018) call for combining place-based analyses of ASs with costs (Ostrom et al. 1994). That said, this level of detail flow analyses in the study of telecoupled systems; Boillat can quickly become unmanageable for multiple ASs in a et al. (2018) and Jones et al. (2017) integrate a political ecol- network, and might also not be necessary to explain a phe- ogy perspective; Kimmich (2016) uses an institutional politi- nomenon. We propose that key elements of an AS, which cal economic perspective and analytic narrative approach to should be specified at minimum in any NAS application, public choice situations of party competition and regulation; are actors, their interactions, and outcomes; but studies may and Magnani et al. (2018) study how heterogeneous actors, differ regarding the level of detail in which they specify the including non-human ones, enact energy as a common-pool positions, choices, information, control, and benefits/costs, resource via polycentric intermediation networks, using or game-theoretic models in multiple ASs. Actor-Network Theory. Finally, authors have also pointed out the possibility to Future research needs use NAS analyses for scenario building. As illustrated in Kimmich and Villamayor-Tomás (2019), NAS can be used The reviewed papers also point to several aspects for further to explore the feasibility and implications of different policy research. While some studies focus almost exclusively on solutions as they create cascading effects across different research questions and conclusions concerning their empiri- configurations of AS outcomes. cal cases, the majority also provide conclusions concerning As mentioned earlier, many studies were excluded from theory, models, and methods. Big themes that we believe our systematic analysis because they did not fulfil all inclu- are worth pursuing in the mid to long term are the develop- sion criteria (see Fig. 2), or, in a few instances, were pub- ment of new ways to synthesise and visualize (e.g., beyond lished after our initial coding process was complete. Several boxes and arrow diagrams) NAS data to facilitate analysis such studies make contributions that are worth mentioning (Cox 2014; Wilkes-Allemann et al. 2015; Gritsenko 2018; here for their methodological contributions or potential to Märker et al. 2018); the role of imaginaries, worldviews and contribute to middle-range theory building. Heikkila et al. power relations within and between ASs (Ruiz-Ballesteros (2021), for example, use a semi-automated text analysis of and Brondizio 2013; Jones et al. 2017; Boillat et al. 2018; 22 state-level policies governing oil and gas development Mudliar and Koontz 2018); the conceptualization of eco- in California to identify actors, issues, and rules and their logical situations, in addition to the social-ecological and connections around different focal areas (which they equate purely social ASs (Schlüter et al. 2019); and the study of the to “targeted ASs”). Baldwin and Tang (2021) provide an evolution and dynamics of a NAS over time through layers illustration of how hierarchical regulatory ASs can com- of older and more recent ASs (Möck et al. 2019). bine with markets to jointly produce outcomes of interest. From a more operational point of view, progress can also Villamayor-Tomas et al. (2019) in turn theorize around the be made with the characterization of ASs, links between effectiveness of policy instruments and their bundles in ASs, and network boundaries. Early game-theoretical promoting collective action depending on the type of AS characterizations (Kimmich 2013) of AS types have more at hand. Levänen and Hukkinen (2013) highlight the role recently been followed by studies distinguishing between of cognitive practices in ASs and the role of deliberation 13 Sustainability Science (2023) 18:11–26 23 in linking formal and informal institutions. Olivier (2019) review. A comprehensive list or typology of possible situa- builds on the network approach to interactions to under- tions and a systematic procedure to identify relevant situa- stand whether cooperation versus coordination situations are tions in an empirical case will also be crucial. The types of addressed via more or less redundant bundles of rules in two situations identified and summarized in this empirical lit- cases of high-quality drinking water provision in New York erature review provide a first orientation. As discussed here, City and Boston. Barreteau et al. (2020) develop a frame- future research can also make use of the broader literature work for modelling dynamic ASs based on feedback control and perspectives on social and social–ecological networks loops, thereby enabling the identification of vulnerabilities to advance NAS research. in dynamic environments, and Kellner and Brunner (2021) combine hydrological modelling with a NAS approach. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen- tary material available at https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/s​ 11625-0​ 22-0​ 1121-2. Acknowledgements Inspiration through the i-CONN project on Conclusion interdisciplinary connectivity science, funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the There is widespread recognition that governance scholars Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 859937, is gratefully acknowledged. gain considerable insights from empirically studying con- nected action situations (ASs). Situation-centred frameworks Funding Open access funding provided by Institute for Advanced have been developed and used to guide three decades’ worth Studies Vienna. of empirical analyses, focusing on specific, but frequently isolated ASs. Only in the last decade have these frameworks Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- been extended to networks of ASs, but the situation-centred bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long approaches to networks are currently rather diverse and as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, have opened multiple paths and perspectives to the study provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes of a variety of very heterogeneous networks. After a decade were made. The images or other third party material in this article are of empirical research into NAS cases, this review provides included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in an orientation for the multiple paths and perspectives that the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not have been taken, to consolidate the insights and experiences permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will gained with the diverse approaches, and to highlight the need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a most promising avenues for future research. copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/. We take stock of the methods, results, network typolo- gies, and most important suggestions and conclusions from empirical studies for NAS research. Although there is coher- ence along the lines of existing frameworks to describe and References study single ASs, there is currently no general approach to Al-Saidi M, Elagib NA (2017) Towards understanding the integrative extend the analysis to networks. This is the case because approach of the water, energy and food nexus. Sci Total Environ the types of ASs and links between ASs are heterogene- 574:1131–1139. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2016.​09.​046 ous. While acknowledging the diverse situation- and case- An L (2012) Modeling human decisions in coupled human and natu- specific relevance of physical, institutional, or social links, ral systems: review of agent-based models. Model Hum Decis 229:25–36. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ecolm​odel.​2011.​07.​010 respectively, future NAS research could profit from a typol- Anderies JM, Rodriguez AA, Janssen MA, Cifdaloz O (2007) Pana- ogy of ASs, including network archetypes. ceas, uncertainty, and the robust control framework in sustain- Our results suggest that the diversity of ASs and the mul- ability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:15194. https://​doi.​org/​ tiple types of physical and social links call for a flexible and 10.​1073/​pnas.​07026​55104 Angst M, Widmer A, Fischer M, Ingold K (2018) Connectors and case-sensitive approach, which is reflected in the theoretical coordinators in natural resource governance: insights from Swiss perspectives and methods taken in each case study. Although water supply. Ecol Soc 23(2):1 this sensitivity is crucial to prevent panacea traps and to Baldwin E, Tang T (2021) Hierarchies, markets, and collaborative foster creativity, a more explicit and consistent reporting networks in energy governance: multilevel drivers of renewable energy deployment. J Environ Manag 290:112614. https://​doi.​ of network approaches used in the field helps to learn from org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2021.​112614 and build on or depart from others’ procedures. A common Baldwin E, Chen T, Cole D (2019) Institutional analysis for new public procedure, checklist, or protocol would be fruitful to enable governance scholars. Public Manag Rev 21:890–917. https://d​ oi.​ cumulated knowledge generation across studies of single org/​10.​1080/​14719​037.​2018.​15384​27 Barnes ML, Bodin Ö, Guerrero AM et al (2017) The social structural and comparative case studies. Our codebook provides a foundations of adaptation and transformation in social–ecologi- preliminary checklist that could help to address the major cal systems. Ecol Soc 22(4):16 challenges of NAS research identified and discussed in this 13 24 Sustainability Science (2023) 18:11–26 Barreteau O, Anderies JM, Guerbois C et al (2020) Transfers of vul- Dutton WH, Mäkinen H (1987) The development of telecommu- nerability through adaptation plan implementation: an analysis nications: the outcome of an ecology of games. Inf Manag based on networks of feedback control loops. Ecol Soc. https://​ 13:255–264 doi.​org/​10.​5751/​ES-​11402-​250203 Dutton WH, Schneider V, Vedel T (2012) Ecologies of games shap- Baur I, Binder CR (2013) Adapting to socioeconomic developments ing large technical systems: cases from telecommunications to by changing rules in the governance of common property pas- the internet. In: Bauer J, Lang A, Schneider V (eds) Innovation tures in the Swiss Alps. Ecol Soc. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5751/​ policy and governance in high-tech industries: the complexity of ES-​05689-​180460 coordination. Springer, Berlin, pp 49–75 Beach D, Pedersen RB (2016) Causal case study methods: foundations Edelmann H, Quiñones-Ruiz XF, Penker M et al (2020) Social learn- and guidelines for comparing, matching, and tracing. University ing in food quality governance—evidences from geographical of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor indications amendments. Int J Commons 14:108–122. https://​ Beckmann V, Padmanabhan M (2009) Analysing institutions: what doi.​org/​10.​5334/​ijc.​968 method to apply? In: Beckmann V, Padmanabhan MA (eds) Insti- Friis C, Nielsen JØ, Otero I et al (2016) From teleconnection to tel- tutions and sustainability. Springer, Berlin, pp 341–371 ecoupling: taking stock of an emerging framework in land sys- Bodin Ö, Prell C (2011) Social networks and natural resource manage- tem science. J Land Use Sci 11:131–153. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 080/​ ment: uncovering the social fabric of environmental governance. 17474​23X.​2015.​10964​23 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Gintis H (2009) The bounds of reason: game theory and the unification Bodin Ö, Alexander SM, Baggio J et al (2019) Improving network of the behavioral sciences. Princeton University Press, Princeton approaches to the study of complex social–ecological interde- Gritsenko D (2018) Explaining choices in energy infrastructure devel- pendencies. Nat Sustain 2:551–559. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​ opment as a network of adjacent action situations: the case of s41893-​019-​0308-0 LNG in the Baltic Sea region. Energy Policy 112:74–83. https://​ Boillat S, Gerber J-D, Oberlack C et al (2018) Distant interactions, doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​enpol.​2017.​10.​014 power, and environmental justice in protected area governance: Grundmann P, Ehlers M-H (2016) Determinants of courses of action a telecoupling perspective. Sustainability 10:3954 in bioenergy villages responding to changes in renewable heat Bowles S (2004) Microeconomics: behavior, institutions, and evolution. utilization policy. Util Policy 41:183–192. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Russell Sage; Princeton University Press, New York; Princeton 1016/j.​jup.​2016.​02.​012 Breuer A, Janetschek H, Malerba D (2019) Translating sustainable Haddaway NR, Macura B, Whaley P, Pullin AS (2018) ROSES RepOrt- development goal (SDG) interdependencies into policy advice. ing standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: pro forma, Sustainability. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su110​72092 flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct Bromley DW (2006) Sufficient reason: volitional pragmatism and the of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Envi- meaning of economic institutions. Princeton University Press, ron Evid 7:7. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s13750-​018-​0121-7 Princeton Hagedorn K (2008) Particular requirements for institutional analysis in Bruns BR (2015) Names for games: locating 2 × 2 games. Games. nature-related sectors. Eur Rev Agric Econ 35:357–384. https://​ https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​g6040​495 doi.​org/​10.​1093/​erae/​jbn019 Bruns B, Kimmich C (2021) Archetypal games generate diverse models Heikkila T, Weible CM (2018) A semiautomated approach to analyzing of power, conflict, and cooperation. Ecol Soc. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ polycentricity. Environ Policy Gov 28:308–318. https://​doi.​org/​ 5751/​ES-​12668-​260402 10.​1002/​eet.​1817 Bryson JM (2004) What to do when stakeholders matter. Public Manag Heikkila T, Weible CM, Olofsson KL et al (2021) The structure of Rev 6:21–53 environmental governance: how public policies connect and par- Bushouse BK (2011) Governance structures: using IAD to understand tition California’s oil and gas policy landscape. J Environ Manag variation in service delivery for club goods with information 284:112069. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2021.​112069 asymmetry. Policy Stud J 39:105–119. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​ Hodgson GM (2004) The evolution of institutional economics: agency, 1541-​0072.​2010.​00398.x structure, and Darwinism in American institutionalism. Rout- Carlson LA, Bitsch V (2018) Social sustainability in the ready-made- ledge, New York garment sector in Bangladesh: an institutional approach to supply Janssen M, Bodin Ö, Anderies J et al (2006) Toward a network per- chains. Int Food Agribus Manag Rev 21:269–292 spective of the study of resilience in social-ecological systems. Carter DP, Weible CM, Siddiki SN, Basurto X (2015) Integrating core Ecol Soc 11(1):15 concepts from the institutional analysis and development frame- Janssen MA, Anderies JM, Cardenas J-C (2011) Head-enders as sta- work for the systematic analysis of policy designs: an illustration tionary bandits in asymmetric commons: comparing irrigation from the US National Organic Program regulation. J Theor Polit experiments in the laboratory and the field. Spec Sect Gov Com- 28:159–185. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​09516​29815​603494 mons Learn Field Lab Exp 70:1590–1598. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Cornwell B, Curry TJ, Schwirian KP (2003) Revisiting Norton Long’s 1016/j.​ecole​con.​2011.​01.​006 ecology of games: a network approach. City Community 2:121– Jones R, Rigg C, Pinkerton E (2017) Strategies for assertion of con- 142. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1540-​6040.​00044 servation and local management rights: a Haida Gwaii herring Cox M (2014) Applying a social–ecological system framework to the story. Neoliberalism Glob Small-Scale Fish 80:154–167. https://​ study of the Taos Valley irrigation system. Hum Ecol 42:311– doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​marpol.​2016.​09.​031 324. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10745-​014-​9651-y Kelley HH, Holmes JG, Kerr NL et al (2003) An atlas of interpersonal Cumming GS (2016) Heterarchies: reconciling networks and hierar- situations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge chies. Trends Ecol Evol 31:622–632. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ Kellner E, Brunner MI (2021) Reservoir governance in world’s water tree.​2016.​04.​009 towers needs to anticipate multi-purpose use. Earths Future Di Gregorio M, Fatorelli L, Paavola J et al (2019) Multi-level govern- 9:e2020EF001643. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1029/​2020E​F0016​43 ance and power in climate change policy networks. Glob Environ Kholod N, Evans M, Khan Z et al (2021) Water-energy-food nexus in Change 54:64–77. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​gloen​vcha.​2018.​10.​ India: a critical review. Energy Clim Change 2:100060. https://​ 003 doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​egycc.​2021.​100060 13 Sustainability Science (2023) 18:11–26 25 Kimmich C (2013) Linking action situations: coordination, conflicts, protocol. Environ Model Softw 48:37–48. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ and evolution in electricity provision for irrigation in Andhra 1016/j.​envso​ft.​2013.​06.​003 Pradesh, India. Ecol Econ 90:150–158. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.​ Oberlack C, Boillat S, Brönnimann S et al (2018) Polycentric govern- ecole​con.​2013.​03.​017 ance in telecoupled resource systems. Ecol Soc. https://​doi.​org/​ Kimmich C (2016) Can analytic narrative inform policy change? The 10.​5751/​ES-​09902-​230116 political economy of the Indian Electricity-Irrigation Nexus. J Olivier T (2019) How do institutions address collective-action prob- Dev Stud 52:269–285. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00220​388.​2015.​ lems? Bridging and bonding in institutional design. Polit Res Q 10931​19 72:162–176. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10659​12918​784199 Kimmich C, Sagebiel J (2016) Empowering irrigation: a game-theo- Ostrom E, Cox M (2010) Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diag- retic approach to electricity utilization in Indian agriculture. Util nostic approach for social-ecological analysis. Environ Conserv Policy 43, B:174–185. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jup.​2016.​10.​002 37:451–463. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​S0376​89291​00008​34 Kimmich C, Villamayor-Tomás S (2019) Assessing action situation Ostrom E, Gardner R, Walker J (1994) Rules, games and common-pool networks: a configurational perspective on water and energy gov- resources. The University of Michigan Press, Michigan ernance in irrigation systems. Water Econ Policy. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​ Pahl-Wostl C, Holtz G, Kastens B, Knieper C (2010) Analyzing com- 10.​1142/​S2382​624X1​85000​54 plex water governance regimes: the management and transition Knieper C, Holtz G, Kastens B, Pahl-Wostl C (2010) Analysing water framework. Environ Sci Policy 13:571–581. https://d​ oi.​org/​10.​ governance in heterogeneous case studies—experiences with a 1016/j.​envsci.​2010.​08.​006 database approach. Spec Issue Water Gov times Change 13:592– Pahl-Wostl C, Becker G, Knieper C, Sendzimir J (2013) How multilevel 603. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envsci.​2010.​09.​002 societal learning processes facilitate transformative change: a Kuenkel P (2019) Stewarding sustainability transformations. comparative case study analysis on flood management. Ecol Soc. Springer, Berlin https://​doi.​org/​10.​5751/​ES-​05779-​180458 Lejano RP, Stokols D (2013) Social ecology, sustainability, and eco- Peng W, Iyer G, Bosetti V et al (2021) Climate policy models need to nomics. Ecol Econ 89:1–6. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ecole​con.​ get real about people—here’s how. Nature 594:174–176 2013.​01.​011 Podimata MV, Yannopoulos PC (2015) Evolution of game theory appli- Levänen JO, Hukkinen JI (2013) A methodology for facilitating the cation in irrigation systems. Effic Irrig Manag Eff Urban Rural feedback between mental models and institutional change in Landsc 4:271–281. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.a​ aspro.2​ 015.0​ 3.0​ 31 industrial ecosystem governance: a waste management case- Pörtner H, Scholes R, Agard J et al (2021) IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored study from northern Finland. Ecol Econ 87:15–23. https://​doi.​ workshop report on biodiversity and climate change org/​10.​1016/j.​ecole​con.​2012.​12.​001 Poteete AR, Janssen M, Ostrom E (2010) Working together: collective Long NE (1958) The local community as an ecology of games. Am action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice. Princeton J Sociol 64:251–261 University Press, Princeton Lubell M, Robins G, Wang P (2014) Network structure and institu- Prell C (2012) Social network analysis: history, theory and methodol- tional complexity in an ecology of water management games. ogy. Sage, New York Ecol Soc. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5751/​ES-​06880-​190423 Rauthmann JF, Sherman RA, Funder DC (2015) Principles of Situa- Madani K (2010) Game theory and water resources. J Hydrol tion Research: Towards a Better Understanding of Psychological 381:225–238. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jhydr​ol.​2009.​11.​045 Situations. Eur J Personal 29:363–381. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​ Magnani N, Minervini D, Scotti I (2018) Understanding energy com- per.​1994 mons. Polycentricity, translation and intermediation. Rassegna Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N et al (2009) Who’s in and why? A typol- Ital Sociol 59:343–370. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1423/​90583 ogy of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource manage- Märker C, Venghaus S, Hake J-F (2018) Integrated governance for ment. J Environ Manag 90:1933–1949 the food–energy–water nexus—the scope of action for institu- Reyers B, Selig ER (2020) Global targets that reveal the social–eco- tional change. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 97:290–300. https://​ logical interdependencies of sustainable development. Nat Ecol doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2018.​08.​020 Evol 4:1011–1019. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s41559-​020-​1230-6 McGinnis MD (2011) Networks of adjacent action situations in Rommel J (2015) What can economic experiments tell us about insti- polycentric governance. Policy Stud J 39:51–78. https://​doi.​ tutional change in social–ecological systems? Craft Des Sci Polit org/​10.​1111/j.​1541-​0072.​2010.​00396.x Purp Inst Change Soc Ecol Syst 53:96–104. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Mewhirter J, Lubell M, Berardo R (2018) Institutional externali- 1016/j.​envsci.​2014.​05.​006 ties and actor performance in polycentric governance systems. Ruiz-Ballesteros E, Brondizio E (2013) Building negotiated agreement: Environ Policy Gov 28:295–307. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eet.​ the emergence of community-based tourism in Floreana (Galápa- 1816 gos Islands). Hum Organ 72:323–335. https://​doi.​org/​10.​17730/​ Möck M, Vogeler CS, Bandelow NC, Schröder B (2019) Layering humo.​72.4.​47675​36442​q23q31 action situations to integrate spatial scales, resource linkages, Sayles JS, Mancilla Garcia M, Hamilton M et al (2019) Social–eco- and change over time: the case of groundwater management in logical network analysis for sustainability sciences: a systematic agricultural hubs in Germany. Policy Stud J. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ review and innovative research agenda for the future. Environ 1111/​psj.​12377 Res Lett 14:093003. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1748-​9326/​ab2619 Moser SC, Ekstrom JA, Kim J, Heitsch S (2019) Adaptation finance Scharpf FW (1997) Games real actors play: actor-centered institutional- archetypes: local governments’ persistent challenges of funding ism in policy research. Westview Press, Boulder adaptation to climate change and ways to overcome them. Ecol Schinko T, Bachner G, Schleicher SP, Steininger KW (2017) Modeling Soc. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5751/​ES-​10980-​240228 for insights not numbers: the long-term low-carbon transforma- Mudliar P, Koontz T (2018) The muting and unmuting of caste tion. Atmósfera 30:137–161 across inter-linked action arenas: inequality and collective Schlager E, Weible CM (2013) New theories of the policy process. action in a community-based watershed group. Int J Commons Policy Stud J 41:389–396. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​psj.​12030 12(1):225–248 Schlüter M, Baeza A, Dressler G et al (2017) A framework for map- Müller B, Bohn F, Dreßler G et al (2013) Describing human decisions ping and comparing behavioural theories in models of social- in agent-based models—ODD + D, an extension of the ODD ecological systems. Ecol Econ 131:21–35. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 1016/j.​ecole​con.​2016.​08.​008 13 26 Sustainability Science (2023) 18:11–26 Schlüter M, Haider LJ, Lade SJ et al (2019) Capturing emergent phe- situations and policy instruments. Environ Sci Policy 97:44–57. nomena in social-ecological systems: an analytical framework. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envsci.​2019.​03.​009 Ecol Soc. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5751/​ES-​11012-​240311 Villamayor-Tomas S, Oberlack C, Epstein G et al (2020) Using case Scholl HJ (2001) Agent-based and system dynamics modeling: a call study data to understand SES interactions: a model-centered for cross study and joint research. In: Proceedings of the 34th meta-analysis of SES framework applications. Resil Complex Hawaii international conference on system sciences. I.E.E.E., Framew Models Capture Soc Ecol Interact 44:48–57. https://d​ oi.​ 0-7695-0981-9 org/​10.​1016/j.​cosust.​2020.​05.​002 Sendzimir J, Flachner Z, Pahl-Wostl C, Knieper C (2010) Stalled Weise S, Coulton P, Chiasson M (2017) Designing in between local regime transition in the upper Tisza River Basin: the dynam- government and the public—using institutional analysis in inter- ics of linked action situations. Environ Sci Policy 13:604–619. ventions on civic infrastructures. Comput Support Coop Work https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envsci.​2010.​09.​005 CSCW 26:927–958. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10606-​017-​9277-x Sovacool BK, Axsen J, Sorrell S (2018) Promoting novelty, rigor, Welch D, Yates L (2018) The practices of collective action: practice and style in energy social science: Towards codes of practice theory, sustainability transitions and social change. J Theory Soc for appropriate methods and research design. Spec Issue Probl Behav 48:288–305. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jtsb.​12168 Methods Clim Energy Res 45:12–42. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ Wilkes-Allemann J, Pütz M, Hirschi C (2015) Governance of forest erss.​2018.​07.​007 recreation in urban areas: analysing the role of stakeholders and Steffen W, Broadgate W, Deutsch L et al (2015) The trajectory of institutions using the institutional analysis and development the Anthropocene: the great acceleration. Anthr Rev 2:81–98. framework. Environ Policy Gov 25:139–156. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​20530​19614​564785 1002/​eet.​1668 Therville C, Brady U, Barreteau O et al (2019) Challenges for local Yu L, Kasymov U (2020) Social Construction of pastureland: chang- adaptation when governance scales overlap. Evidence from ing rules and resource-use rights in China and Kyrgyzstan. Int J Languedoc. France Reg Environ Change 19:1865–1877. https://​ Commons 14(1):1–15 doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10113-​018-​1427-2 Zikos D, Kluvánková-Oravská T, Sláviková L (2010) Experiments Turnbull L, Hütt M-T, Ioannides AA et al (2018) Connectivity and on common pool resources: innovative tools providing multi- complex systems: learning from a multi-disciplinary perspective. dimensional insights. Experiences from three new EU member Appl Netw Sci 3:11. https://​doi.o​ rg/​10.​1007/​s41109-​018-​0067-2 states. Gov Gov Multilevel Gov Water Biodivers Perspect Cent Vatn A (2005) Institutions and the environment. Edward Elgar, East Eur, pp 107–127 Cheltenham Villamayor-Tomas S, Grundmann P, Epstein G et al (2015) The water- Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to energy-food security nexus through the lenses of the value chain jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. and the Institutional Analysis and Development frameworks. Water Altern 8:735–755 Villamayor-Tomas S, Thiel A, Amblard L et al (2019) Diagnosing the role of the state for local collective action: types of action 13