Read the following passage carefully:
The revival of the Public Trust Doctrine (PTD) in modern environmental jurisprudence has provoked contentious debate regarding its jurisprudential boundaries. Early proponents of the doctrine's revival championed the PTD as a substantive, judicially enforceable mandate, interpreting it as an independent right empowering citizens to compel state protection of broadly defined ecological assets through litigation. Legal formalists offer a sharp critique of this expansionism, contending that the PTD is fundamentally an archaic property rule historically circumscribed to the preservation of commerce in navigable tidelands; thus, they argue, its repurposing for general environmental protection represents an illegitimate distortion of common law. More recently, institutionalist scholars have advanced a procedural reinterpretation. They posit that the PTD does not inherently dictate specific substantive conservation outcomes, but rather functions as a democratic forcing mechanism—invalidating the covert alienation of public resources by mandating explicit, transparent legislative deliberation. While the formalists rely on an anachronistic rigidity that ignores modern ecological realities, the early proponents' reliance on aggressive judicial intervention risks democratic deficit. Ultimately, the PTD must be permitted to adapt to contemporary environmental crises, yet this modernization can only claim legitimacy if it is anchored by legislative consensus rather than court-imposed mandates.
Based on the passage, match each of the following groups or individuals with the view explicitly attributed to them.
- The author of the passageThe doctrine's expansion to address modern ecological issues is warranted, provided it is directed by legislative agreement rather than the courts.
- Early proponents of the doctrine's revivalThe doctrine functions as a substantive, independent legal right that enables citizens to litigate against the state to protect environmental resources.
- Legal formalistsThe doctrine's application to general environmental preservation is an illegitimate overextension of a historically restricted property concept.
- Institutionalist scholarsThe doctrine serves not as a guarantee of specific conservation results, but as a procedural constraint ensuring transparent governmental deliberation over public assets.