INTRODUCTION

This article examines the role of trust networks in managing socioterritorial conflicts. According to ^{Tilly’s proposal (2007)}, the establishment and presence of a trust network in conflicts like those studied here can be identified by verifying the existence of interconnected groups of people with strong bonds, where members trust in the assistance and attention of others. It is also observed that participants in a network collaborate in carrying out long-term initiatives or projects, such as the perpetuation of certain land use patterns considered socially acceptable, even if their outcomes might fail due to mismanagement by the individuals within the network.

By analyzing trust networks, it is possible to study how actors or groups relate to each other, forming various links of different strengths and scopes. Within these networks, some members may participate in multiple social structures simultaneously, either to achieve common goals, access resources, or simply fulfill the need for group affiliation. These interactions can be observed in territorial matters, that is, they enable an understanding of how individual participation in networks has either benefited or affected the management of territorial resources through collaborative relationships (^{Ramírez, 2016}).

According to ^{Garrido (2001)}, the existence of social networks implies connections that influence the behavior of the actors. The trust and commitment of the members of a network become fundamental in facilitating social coordination and addressing potential conflicts among multiple stakeholders on a particular issue (^{Alexander et al., 2004}; ^{Hanneman & Riddle, 2005}; ^{Seligman, 1998}; ^{Tilly, 2005}; ^{Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994}).

The functioning of networks and their role in coordinating actors can be explained from various perspectives. For instance, the rationalist approach emphasizes individuals’ behavior considering their motivations and personal interests in order to maximize their benefits (^{Lozares, 1996}; ^{Pierson & Skocpol, 2008}; ^{Uribe, 2009}; ^{Shaffer, 2018}). Conversely, the institutionalist approach focuses on how actors operate within certain rules or conventions and how they acquire, retain, and use contingencies, knowledge, and information within institutional frameworks or arrangements (^{Emirbayer, 2009}; ^{Uribe, 2009}; ^{Ostrom, 2011}).

On the other hand, the relational approach attempts to link individual motivations, institutional contexts, and large social processes to better understand the development of trust bonds in specific contexts. It can also be used to understand how the presence of collective actions impacts the productive dynamics of a territory from appropriation, use, and transformation, thereby alluding to social, political, economic, religious, environmental, and cultural dimensions (^{Tilly, 2005}; ^{Hanagan & Tilly, 2010}; ^{Krinsky & Mische, 2013}). Consequently, territorial transformations emerge as a multifaceted game, yielding both winners and losers, unveiling cooperative dynamics or conflicts among social actors as they navigate adverse or advantageous circumstances to further their interests.

This article employs a relational approach to examine the conflicts arising from shifts in land usage within the Valle de Guadalupe —a region rapidly evolving towards the establishment of a tourist-wine cluster—. These conflicts stem from the recent influx of real estate ventures, as a process that has neglected the role of trust networks.

Drawing from such conflicts, this article presents evidence through two lines of research rooted in the theoretical-conceptual framework of trust networks and their operational mechanisms. For this purpose, this article is organized into sections that address the prevailing situation in the studied region, ^{Tilly’s (2005)} theoretical perspective on trust networks, the implemented methodological strategy, the presentation and discussion of findings, culminating in the presentation of conclusions.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VALLE DE GUADALUPE

The Valle de Guadalupe is located north of the municipality of Ensenada, Baja California, 25 km away from the urban area and 85 km south of Tecate and Tijuana; it is characterized by its Mediterranean climate (^{Bringas-Rábago & Toudert, 2011}). Until the first decade of this century, the local population’s economic sustenance was based on agriculture (^{Magoni, 2009}), primarily suitable for the cultivation of grapevines (vitis vinifera), olive trees, citrus fruits, alfalfa, and vegetables (Secretaría de Fomento Agropecuario ^{[SEFOA], 2011}). This region spans an area of 66 353 hectares, of which 8% (5 308) corresponds to arable land (^{Espejel, 2022}); it encompasses the margins of the Guadalupe water basin, which supplies water to this area and the population of Ensenada (see map 1).

Source: Elaborated by Nora L. Bringas-Rábago based on information from ^{INEGI (2018)}.

Map 1. Location of the Valle de Guadalupe and its Main Settlements  

As of 2020, the Valle de Guadalupe housed a total population of 7 089 inhabitants, primarily concentrated in its three main population centers. Among these, Francisco Zarco stands as the most populous locality, hosting 4 334 residents, followed by the El Porvenir ejido with 1 806 inhabitants, and San Antonio de las Minas, accommodating 893 inhabitants (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía ^{[INEGI], 2020}).

Traditionally, agriculture has been the economic foundation of Valle de Guadalupe. However, following the creation of the Ruta del Vino (Wine Route) in 2000, wine tourism blossomed, and waves of visitors began arriving, demanding leisure, recreation, and hospitality services in this newly discovered wine region (^{Quiñónez Ramírez et al., 2012}; N. L. Bringas-Rábago, field diary, December 15, 2022).

Alongside the flourishing tourism industry, the interest of real estate developers grew, leading to land subdivision for residential purposes, impacting areas designated for cultivation (N. Badán, personal communication, April 25, 2020; S. Cosío, personal communication, April 28, 2020; F. Pérez Castro, personal communication, March 31, 2020). This prompted a productive change due to the immediate economic influx from tourism (^{Bringas-Rábago, 2014}). However, this rapid expansion of the real estate sector, without proper oversight, has encroached upon and endangered the future of Valle de Guadalupe’s vital wine industry, compromising its performance.

In recent decades, the constellation of social actors with political and economic influence in Valle de Guadalupe has changed the land that originally belonged to Kumiai native groups. In the early 19th century, part of this land was acquired by Molokan Russians who reintroduced viticulture, and later, with the agrarian reform, some lands passed into the hands of ejido families and small local landowners (^{Quiñónez Ramírez et al., 2012}). However, from the year 2000 onwards, a wave of national and foreign investors, notably from the wine, tourism, and real estate sectors, began arriving. Significant investments have materialized in Valle de Guadalupe, featuring small and large wine estates owned by Mexican and foreign proprietors, establishing themselves in the region to promote accommodation, gastronomy, or nightlife entertainment businesses, as well as investing in companies that merge wine production with tourist services— such as El Cielo, Maglén, or Bruma—that require different land uses (N. L. Bringas-Rábago, field diary, December 15, 2022).

A CONCEPTUAL APPROACH TO TRUST NETWORKS AND TYPES OF MECHANISMS

The observed changes in Valle de Guadalupe prompt both theoretical and practical inquiries regarding future land uses and the available options for dealing with increasingly contentious social interactions. This section aims to provide a brief overview of the theoretical-conceptual foundations of trust networks and the mechanisms used by them in relation to territorial conflicts. The explanatory proposal is based on the analysis of these networks and the action repertoires used by various social actors to address conflicts and attempt to achieve consensus regarding land use management during the period between 2000 and 2020.

Types of Collaborative Mechanisms

When examining the external links of trust networks, it’s essential to recognize that these networks compete for resources—such as capital, land, and labor—with other actors. This means that, in practice, individuals and groups are forced to develop strategies to deal with new networks and ensure their permanence within the social system (^{Tilly, 2005}). In this sense, trust networks operating in contexts where there’s contention for access to and control of these resources create scenarios of inequality in their distribution and management.

The previous review suggests that the expected role of trust networks may vary depending on the interaction among its members, as well as between the agents and government organizations. However, it mainly relates to the relational mechanisms that are significant and recurring for understanding these interactions.

Table 1 illustrates the articulating mechanisms between trust networks and the government, delineating various participation practices within these networks. The vertical axis reflects the objectives set by the government in its collaboration with the networks. On the horizontal axis are the practices adopted by networks in their engagement with the government or other networks. The table employs traffic light colors to denote the levels of trust associated with each mechanism: green denotes actions constituting and revealing higher levels of trust, yellow signifies potential for establishing trust relationships, and red indicates situations where trust is absent.

Table 1. Articulating mechanisms in the relationship between trust networks and government for conflict management  

	Objective of the	Practices observed in the functioning of the network
	government-network relationship	Active participation	Indifferent participation	Abandonment or dissolution
	Integration / strengthening	Participative innovation (commitment relationships)	Simulated participation	Selective co- optation
	Negotiated coexistence	Elitist consultation	Clientelism and evasion of responsibilities	Predatory collaboration
	Segregation	Selective negotiation	Concealment	Discretionary appropriation
	Higher trust
	Potential to establish trust relationships
	No trust

Source: Own elaboration based on ^{Tilly (2005)}.

The government establishes three possible objectives for collaboration with trust networks: integration/strengthening, negotiated coexistence, and segregation. With the first objective, the government seeks to establish reciprocal relationships with the networks, demonstrating high trust and low levels of uncertainty (^{Heimer, 2001}). With the second, the relationship involves negotiated participation where both parties contribute resources (goods, capital, and information) to achieve a particular goal (^{Lozares, 1996}; ^{Tilly, 2005}). The third objective, segregation, triggers relationships that damage trust and sets the stage for confrontations to emerge.

Table 1 proposes nine dominant types of mechanisms resulting from the interaction between networks and government, which can signify scenarios of either confrontation or consensus. This work focuses on developing three of these mechanisms: participatory innovation, clientelism/avoidance of responsibilities, and discretionary appropriation. The theoretical significance of these mechanisms lies in understanding the management of territorial conflicts, as observed in Valle de Guadalupe during the studied period. These mechanisms manifest through the active participation of network members and the specific practices adopted within a given context.

The first mechanism, called participatory innovation, refers to the outcome of an active interaction among its members that allows for the integration or strengthening of trust relationships with external networks and the government. This operates under exercises of commitment and trust, considered key factors for maintaining reciprocal interactions (^{Heimer, 2001}; ^{Tilly, 2005}).

The second mechanism is clientelism/avoidance of responsibilities, where network participation operates under an exchange dynamic. In other words, participation will cost the network the use of its resources, but it ensures the achievement of the pursued objective (^{Auyero & Benzecry, 2016}; ^{Tarapues Taimal, 2012}). Trust in this mechanism can increase or decrease depending on the outcome of the collaboration or the incentives that sustain it (^{Hardin, 2001}; ^{Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994}).

Finally, the mechanism of discretionary appropriation presents a scenario opposite to participative innovation, where the trust relations between networks and government are nonexistent, the interest in undertaking activities is conditioned by previous experiences, and communication strategies are completely limited or isolated (^{Tilly, 2005}).

The previously proposed mechanisms allow us to observe the possibility for trust networks and governments to move towards the recurrent use of action repertoires that contribute to consensus in managing resources amidst pressures to change land use. It also leaves open the possibility of experiencing regressive processes in reaching agreements. In this sense, this approach directs attention to relevant aspects of collective actions and their mechanisms to understand scenarios of dispute and confrontation in the territory. It observes how they participate, relate, and what strategies are used in these scenarios.

METHODOLOGICAL STRATEGY FOR THE ANALYSIS OF TRUST NETWORKS

To study how trust networks have operated in Valle de Guadalupe regarding the territorial conflicts observed from 2000 to 2020, a qualitative methodology was chosen to obtain perceptions and interpretations of the actors involved in the contentious events (^{Barragán et al., 2008}). To do so, a review of press coverage was conducted initially, allowing for the identification of the parties involved and the type of involvement they had during disputes over land use.

Semi-structured interviews were used to gather detailed information regarding the participation of actors in pre-existing networks, aiming to collect evidence about the mechanisms employed by the actors in their interaction dynamics and the progress made in negotiations (^{Halperin & Heath, 2012}). The design of this instrument incorporated topics concerning collaborative actions (formal and informal) envisioned by the networks regarding the future of this region and the government’s involvement in the long-term regulation of the territory.

Non-participatory observation was another technique used to observe interviewees’ behaviors concerning other actors, conflict situations, or any other topic related to collective participation. The snowball technique was used for this purpose (^{Voicu & Babonea, 2011}). This tool allowed reaching new actors who were not initially identified, thereby increasing the number of informants. It’s worth mentioning that the COVID-19 pandemic prevented in-person approaches with informants, so alternatives like video calls were sought to gather the necessary information.

From a theoretical foundation, an analytical framework was formulated to discern collaborative patterns and mechanisms within contexts of contention. To achieve this, the following categories, inspired by ^{Tilly’s work (2005)}, were established: a) types of relationships, based on the periodicity and reciprocity of the links observed; b) transcendental activities, reflecting both internal and external network participation with other entities; c) communication strategies, derived from dialogues and consensus among actors concerning changes in land use.

Part of the research objectives aims to elucidate the strategies and primary mechanisms utilized by trust networks within contentious scenarios to attain a shared objective, supported by associated evidence. The participative innovation mechanism encompasses evidence depicting actions characterized by trust and reciprocity among network members. Conversely, the clientelism mechanism encompasses actions where trust networks engage to secure direct benefits or incentives for their members. Lastly, the discretionary appropriation mechanism entails activities displaying contention between networks and the government or situations where trust was absent.

To organize and analyze the information, the Atlas.ti software was employed. A total of 14 interviews underwent systematic categorization, with codes established for various dimensions of trust networks: transcendent activities, internal network communication, trust relationships, mutual commitments, and external connections. Through coding, actors were classified into distinct groups: leading, active, and incidental, and their affiliations were identified, including government, civil society, winemakers, farmers, and/or landholders. Notably, due to uncertainties prompted by the pandemic, interviews with three identified actors could not be conducted, despite their identification via the snowball technique.

Given the intricate nature of studying trust networks and comprehending the perspectives of involved parties, a content analysis was conducted using Atlas.ti codes. This approach offered a clearer insight into relationships, participatory action, and the meanings conveyed by the actors (^{Fernández, 2002}). Word association helped identify evidence of actions linked to different mechanisms, enabling the establishment of relationships between these mechanisms and active networks in Valle de Guadalupe. For example, in the case of clientelism, associations were found with words describing intentional efforts to construct and maintain local power, employ actions for control, social cohesion, and intimidation (^{Boesten, 2014}). To ensure objectivity and mitigate biases in the analysis, the scope of each category was precisely defined. Despite research challenges posed by the pandemic, sufficient information was obtained through successful interviews with key actors from identified groups, enabling fulfillment of the outlined analytical framework.

RESULTS ANALYSIS: TRAJECTORIES AND COLLABORATIVE MECHANISMS

This section presents the research findings. It begins by analyzing the collaborative trajectories of diverse groups coexisting in Valle de Guadalupe, followed by an exploration of mechanisms defining various forms of collaboration among these actors. Furthermore, it identifies the contentious scenarios related to land use and delineates the mechanisms governing the relationship between trust networks and the government in managing territorial conflicts.

CONTENTION AND USE OF COLLABORATIVE MECHANISMS: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The intersecting interests driving the structural transformation of Valle de Guadalupe have generated underlying tensions surrounding the utilization of collaborative mechanisms to address land-use challenges. Conflicts have arisen due to the adoption of non-transparent procedures in applying land-use regulations, sparking disputes among diverse stakeholders in this region. Presently, these conflicts predominantly involve the real estate and service sectors, aggravated by the absence of well-defined regulations governing land use. As a result, interest groups are mobilizing, exerting pressure on municipal authorities to intervene and establish guidelines to manage this uncontrolled growth.

The trust networks are diverging in their trajectories. Initially marked by reciprocity, the relationships between winegrowers and landowners took a different turn with the arrival of new real estate players and wine tourism companies, resulting in the acquisition of ejidal lands by these entities. This shift impacted collaborative relationships and disrupted the original vision for the future of the wine region. Contrary to the relationship-commitment prototype suggested by Hanagan and ^{Tilly (2010),} the envisioned level of commitment in relationships was not attained. This limitation hindered the progression of relationships to higher levels of trust, subsequently diminishing the frequency and intimacy of their interactions.

Similarly, there was a loss of trust in the government due to its inability to enforce legal frameworks and to provide continuity in territorial policies. This led to confrontations between networks and the government and increased uncertainty by weakening the credibility of the latter. Conversely, winegrowers, the collective Por un Valle de Verdad, and the Provino committee managed to strengthen their bonds, increase their levels of trust, and enhance their capabilities. This wouldn’t have been possible without the trust, resources, and ongoing interactions among their members (^{Coleman, 1990}; ^{Hardin, 2001}).

This prompted the networks to resort to employing mechanisms to collaborate with the government or other networks. It’s essential to note that these mechanisms are contingent upon the specific context and the nature of the relationships in which they evolve. It is worth emphasizing the evolutionary nature of networks, and to showcase their progression toward more or less collaborative action repertoires in their interactions with the government.

The evolving context has facilitated networks in adopting diverse mechanisms tailored to their specific situations and interests. This adaptation has given rise to a participatory model based on incentives (^{Hardin, 2001}). A clear example of this participative innovation mechanism can be observed in viticulturist networks, in Por un Valle de Verdad, in Provino, and in the local population, who have shown increased collaboration with the government over time, inclusive of academic groups (S. Cosío, personal communication, April 28, 2020). This resonates with ^{Tilly’s (2005, p. 25)} concept of the “dispositional line,” wherein trust networks exhibit a readiness for collaboration and engagement with external entities, fostering increased trust for future endeavors and enabling broader actions (^{Coleman, 1990}).

Likewise, trust networks require incentives to continue operating with innovative mechanisms that allow the development of capacities to drive the creation of public policies, such as the case of the approval of the Zoning Regulation (^{City Council Agreement 61 of 2019}).

In the context of clientelism/evasion of responsibilities, there’s been minimal utilization of these mechanisms within trust networks; however, certain real estate and tourist groups have employed them in collaboration with local government entities. The relationships established between these groups were conditioned by incentives, entailing a cost in the exchange of resources to alter the Sectoral Program. This unveiled a segregation from other networks and the manipulation of procedures that ought to have undergone public consultation. The revelation of hidden interests behind such modifications undermined the trust previously held by existing networks towards the government. This occurrence affirmed the notion that bestowed trust can indeed be betrayed, echoing ^{Tilly’s (2005)} observations.

In relation to the discretionary appropriation mechanism, the findings suggest that while the group of ejidatarios represents one of the oldest networks in Valle de Guadalupe, their collaborative efforts with other networks, particularly viticulturists, remain limited. They perceive viticulturists as a network favored by the government (R. Romo, personal communication, March 20, 2020). This perception has led to their opposition toward the Zoning Regulation, impeding progress or engagement in participative innovation mechanisms, thereby straining pre-existing and long-standing connections (^{Tilly, 2005}). The network of ejidatarios has displayed inconsistent trust-building processes, both with the municipal government and viticulturists, resulting in their reputation as an unreliable network, stemming from their involvement in subdividing and selling agricultural land for alternative purposes.

The government’s involvement in collective dynamics is perceived as unstable and unreliable by both viticulturist and ejidatario networks. Furthermore, instances of corruption have proliferated, fostering widespread distrust (^{Petersen Cortés, 2023}). Simultaneously, the uncertainty surrounding short governmental terms raises concerns regarding political agendas, particularly concerning the organization of Valle de Guadalupe (F. Pérez Castro, personal communication, March 31, 2020). Lastly, it’s worth noting that the capacities of municipal governments have been constrained by resources and limited by the duration of governmental periods. Nevertheless, trust networks have operated as a vital survival mechanism (^{Ledeneva, 2004}; ^{Krinsky & Mische, 2013}).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The trust network perspective helps to comprehend how the array of networks and interests converging in Valle de Guadalupe, has generated conflicts regarding the immediate benefits stemming from tertiary activities and real estate development. These conflicts extend beyond the traditional activities in the region, such as viticulture, which has long defined the territorial identity of Valle (N. Badán, personal communication, April 25, 2020).

The management of conflicts arising from changes in land use has proven to be complex. In this regard, it is observed that trust networks have diligently operated within a governmental regime that was previously absent, relying on isolated participatory mechanisms (N. Badán, personal communication, April 25, 2020; H. Backoff, personal communication, March 25, 2020; F. Pérez Castro, personal communication, March 31, 2020).

Evidence used here suggests that in recent years, the collaborative mechanisms between networks and government have transitioned towards levels of integration and participatory innovation, representing significant progress in fostering dialogues, reaching consensus, and instigating actions aimed at resolving territorial conflicts or as a means to design public policies that enhance comprehensive participatory exercises.

Theoretically, trust networks can be perceived not only as a grouping of actors but also as instruments for participatory planning or as catalysts for collective objectives. Besides serving as overseers of a territory’s resources, they facilitate agreements or viable solutions to resolve social, political, and economic conflicts.

A limiting factor hindering the participation and engagement of trust networks in Valle de Guadalupe is the management of procedures and technicalities involved in programs and regulations (J. Sandoval, personal communication, April 20, 2020). The studied dynamics have fostered collaboration but have also led to notable confusion and distrust among the local population and ejidatarios when undertaking significant activities with other actors.

In practice, trust networks have dealt with conflicts related to land use and have confronted the inefficiencies or shortcomings of local administrations. However, one of the main challenges these networks face is the ability to process the acquired learning to enhance the management of contentious situations and disputes that may arise in the territory. Failure to assimilate this learning could compel these networks to deviate from actions rooted in trust and the pursuit of collective goods, towards exercising actions of concealment and participatory exclusion (^{Tilly, 2005}; ^{Hanagan & Tilly, 2010}).

By analyzing three mechanisms employed by trust networks in Valle de Guadalupe, this article showcased their capacity to either tip the balance towards higher and improved levels of cooperation or towards irresolvable conflicts among interest groups competing for short-term benefits. Nonetheless, for a better understanding of the diverse mechanisms employed by these trust networks, more extensive studies are warranted. These studies should delve into their operational dynamics and participation in conflict resolution.

The case of Valle de Guadalupe underscores the significance of investigating trust networks as dynamic contributors within conflicts. This line of research and analysis holds the potential to offer substantial contributions benefiting communities, enhancing governmental efficiency, and bolstering the efficacy of networks as tools for planning and preserving the natural and cultural heritage of this region, as well as others across Mexico and globally.