Table 3. This table summarizes our findings in the following way: the Ecopark movement upholds two protective functions (A), which are facilitated through five structural network factors (B). There are further five factors that can explain the emergence and reproduction of this structure (C). The table can be read as follows: C has given rise to B, which in turn sustains A.

Function/factor Description
A. Protective functions
A1. Stopping large-scale development Large-scale development plans are a public process centralized around the municipalities, with public consultation meetings before a decision is made by the municipal parliament.
A2. Stopping small-scale development Small-scale development occurs in an ad hoc fashion, and without the necessary approval from the municipal parliament; for monitoring, small-scale development represents a more distributive process.
B. Structural network factors
B1. Integration of information Core-periphery structures tend to integrate information to core actors (Leavitt 1951), which gives them access to relevant information from the network.
B2. Dense social arena The dense social arena between core and semi-core actors captures experience over time and facilitates collective learning and the development and sustaining of protective methods (Wenger 1998, Borgatti and Foster 2003).
B3. Brokerage and coordination The brokerage position of the core actors facilitates coordination of the movement as they have access to early and non-redundant information (Burt 2003).
B4. Internal bridging links (sustaining diversity) The links between core and periphery, especially to the user groups, bridges spatial, temporal, and jurisdictional scales. This increases the legitimacy of the political project and increases ability to detect small-scale development.
B5. Political contacts
(external bridging links)
The many links that core and semi-core actors have to authorities and formal actors, i.e., political contacts, give them both early access to information and channels to influence the decision-making process.
C. Emergence factors
C1. Diversity of civil-society groups The park area has over time attracted a wide range of different user and interest groups, probably related to the various landscape types found in the park.
C2. Politically active organizations A set of new organizations were formed that had a clear political objective to stop development plans and protect the park
C3. Holistic vision and protective story In taking purposeful action to protect the park, the newly formed organizations constructed a protective story that linked park areas into a holistic vision and mobilized organizations with activities and interests in the park (Ernstson and Sörlin 2008).
C4. Centralized institutional context The centralized institutional decision-making process on land-cover change has reinforced the core-periphery structure (Leavitt 1951), a tendency enhanced by the place-based character of the struggle (Ansell 2003).
C5. Self-reinforcing mechanism The core-periphery structure tends to reinforce core and semi-core actors’ control over vital resources, which in turn reproduces the structure (cf. Diani 2003c).