Institutional Context and Sample Selection

To select the sample of the interview participants, it was necessary to have a basic understanding of the ASBC’s organizational field. The boundaries of the organizational field depend on issues of particular importance for those organizations participating (Lepoutre & Valente, 2012). Subsequently, the sample aimed to include all the formalized organizations that found the corridor to be of particular importance to them, and who participated in its creation and management.

Having reviewed the available literature on the institutional context of the corridor, knowledgeable local informants were consulted for the selection (organizational or individual) of a preliminary list of over 30 organizations. Based on this selection, the first list of interviewees was generated and validated with the same local informants, including the major paper’s second reader (FM). I applied three criteria for the selection of the final sample: 1) the actor was part of the ASBC Local Council; 2) the organization was formal and the corridor was of particular relevance to its interests; and 3) the actor participated in the creation or had privileged information about the corridor (Example: a consultant working during management plan elaboration). The final selection was arranged on institutional sectors that shared common characteristics, and it was validated with master program research supervisor (MB) and second reader (FM) who have been working in the ASBC for some years.

It is essential to summarize the general institutional context of the corridor to substantiate the sample selection. According to the National Decree 40043, biological corridors are under the authority of the National Program for Biological Corridors (Programa Nacional de Corredores Biológicos, PNC), which is part of the National System for Protected Areas (Sistema Nacional de Areas Protegidas, SINAC). Besides the National Program for Biological Corridors, they are under the authority of the National Council for Biological Corridors and are locally managed by the Local Committees. LC’s have few legal tools and are participation spaces for the management and consolidation of corridors, whose objectives are: (a) strengthen protected areas and connectivity; (b) create adaptation measures for climate change impacts;

(c) to protect ecosystem services; (d) the strengthening of urban and land planning by articulating with other sectors; and (e) the creation of governance models for the sustainable use of biodiversity (Gobierno de la Republica & Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, 2006). It is a lax and broad legal grounding.

According to legislation, they are constituted by one representative from the National System for Protected Areas, members of non-profit organizations, community organizations, productive organizations, other relevant government institutions, municipalities and other interested parties. The member of SINAC acts as the secretary of the council, and all members donate their time (Gobierno de la Republica & Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, 2006). This legal constitution informed the previously mentioned selection criteria for my research participants, which includes: 1) the members of the

committee; 2) the formalized organizations; and 3) those who on voluntary basis actively participate in the LC and have a particular interest to partake in the corridor.

With the input from the work of Arauz-Beita & Arias-Navarro (2014), the most recent ASBC Strategic Plan, and the information provided by local informants, I identified seven main institutional sectors; the State, community organizations, community development, academia, agricultural, business, environmental non-profits, and civil sectors (see Table 1). In most cases, there is no inflexible discrete division in the categorization of the sector. Community organizations might have business activities, and the agricultural sector might participate in business development that is non-related to agricultural production. For analytical and sampling purposes, organizations were categorized based on their core activities and shared characteristics, as this would provide initial information about their motivations, needs and interests within the corridor. As Table 1 indicates, institutionally the corridor is a vibrant mix of organizations that represent different constituencies and logics, sharing the common interest to partake in the construction of various aspects of the ASBC. In the corridor, organizations have unclear organizational boundaries; with only over 2000 inhabitants living within the ASBC, it is common for board members to be shared between groups, associations, committees and cooperatives, making the organizational boundaries somewhat vague.

Table 1: Institutional referents included in the sample.

Sector Characteristic Participating representatives in

the ASBC Organizational Field

State

Central and local government representation. The intense focus on agricultural livelihoods and the existence of protected areas demands the Ministry for the Environment and the Agricultural Ministry collaborate intensively. Local government have taken a secondary role due to its focus on centralized settlements like Perez Zeledón. Mostly join in the form of appointed representatives and agents taking part of the management in the area.

Ministry for Environment and Energy infrastructure development and service. This brings this groups to participate actively in the protection of forest and particularly the provision of water. They are made by voluntary community members that manage the organizations through board members and compact institutional arrangements with few employees.

Community Organizations

Comprised of Mostly Associations addressing the multiple needs of the local populations. These groups agglutinate women, farmers, students and young people that share a common interest in the well-being of the inhabitants. Their activities range from business promotion to education and conservation of resources. These organizations are formed

These are entrepreneurs and business development of different sizes, employing part of the population that lives within the boundaries of the ASBC. They share the interest of producing economic activities that are linked yet

The sector includes agricultural production referents, involved in the management of soils and watersheds, promotion of agriculture and the improvement of the livelihood of producers. They engage with the corridor management to improve the diversification of agricultural production and the creation of added value for the products or their members.

ASOCUENCA Coopeagri

Civil Sector

Mostly represented by non-profits or non-governmental organizations interested in the conservation of the natural resources in the corridor.

CCT Ríos Vivos

Academia

This sector is mostly represented by universities, as other present academic institutions like junior and high schools gave little to no relevance to the institutional life of the corridor. They share an interest to develop, research and education for beneficiaries in the communities.

UNA

York University

The sample was partly determined by the availability of informants, and many organizational actors or leaders within the corridor have no knowledge or interest in the corridor (Arauz-Beita & Arias-Navarro, 2014). The sample included people that participated in the creation of the corridor, people that manage it on a day to day basis, and other people that have significant stakes in the ASBC. I anticipated that the information they would provide would represent a comprehensive organizational view of the ASBC.