Mapping Ostrom’s common-pool resource systems coding handbook to the coupled infrastructure systems framework to enable comparative research

Abstract

In the study of common-pool resource (CPR) governance, frameworks provide a metatheoretical language to describe system states, dynamics, elements, and relationships. The coding manuals which accompany CPR frameworks-in addition to providing guidelines for connecting empirical case work to conceptual variables-define a vocabulary of coding questions. For empirical work, connecting variables and coding questions with framework elements contributes to conceptual advance. In the process of analysis and publication, it is tempting to offer a novel framework without also developing, applying, or modifying the foundational questions and variables of coding manuals buttressing said frameworks. However, if the scholarly community is to generate robust knowledge for the study of CPR dilemmas, we must provide the underlying work of comparing across frameworks. In this paper, we report on one way the community might conduct such comparisons. We present results and challenges of using a group consensus process to link the more than 450 coding questions derived from the original Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (IADF) to the recently proposed Coupled Infrastructure Systems Framework (CISF). Despite overlap, discrepancies in the conceptual positions of the IADF and CISF suggest a need to modify or create new coding variables related to concepts of system boundaries, externalities, cross-scale interactions, multi-functionality, and technological change. We suggest that such work needs provisioning if commons scholars are to navigate the continued challenges of tailoring frameworks and coding manuals to evolving CPR governance dilemmas.

The Societal Readiness Thinking Tool: A Practical Resource for Maturing the Societal Readiness of Research Projects

“…Materials from the Design Sprint were prototyped by a graphic designer before being built as a web-based wireframe, launched in October 2019, by Computer Science students at Aarhus University. A smaller team of four RRI and research policy experts identified and matched user entry points to the conceptual and processual elements of the SR Tool according to a deliberative, consensus sorting process (Bernstein et al, 2019 ). Each question was further linked to one of 28 supporting methods, allowing users to seek additional reading and guidance to enable implementation in practice.…”

Re-Envisioning Sanitation As a Human-Derived Resource System

“…In the SES community, the creation of a systematic framework has spurred research that increases understanding of effective resource management and has provided a structure to accumulate knowledge across disciplines and contexts. ,,− ,,,,,− We envision the S-SES framework as potentially performing similar functions, supporting interdisciplinary thinking and communication to define a frontier for sanitation research and development. Persistent gaps and frequent failures associated with improving sanitation access ,, indicate a complexity requiring multiple perspectives and approaches that fully appreciate and address the relationships linking human, technological, and environmental systems.…”

“…Yet many research and implementation efforts remain separated from other disciplinary perspectives or are designed for specific settings or technologies. Without a common set of variables to guide the development and application of models and tools–essentially, without a shared vision establishing an interdisciplinary vocabulary of sanitation-related factors and interactions–scholars may focus too narrowly on certain topics while overlooking other characteristics that can affect outcomes. − …”

“…It is an integrated system that can be both beneficial, through human-derived resources recirculated toward positive use, and detrimental, when improper disposal degrades natural resources (Figure ). Beyond sanitation, efforts to analyze coupled human and natural systems have been underway for over a decade. ,, Scholars have developed a generalized social-ecological systems (SES) framework, ,,, which emerged from studying governance of common-pool resources (e.g., forests, irrigation systems, fish stocks) and has been tested in many contexts. ,− The SES framework has offered a common set of relevant variables when studying resource management, classifying these variables within a structure of interrelated subsystems. , It has also aided in identifying factors that affect whether users will self-organize to manage resource systems . Similar analyses could provide insight into sustained functioning of sanitation systems.…”

Studying human-nature relations in aquatic social-ecological systems using the social-ecological action situations framework: how to move from empirical data to conceptual models

“…Three databases exist in which scholars gather data and knowledge on variables of SES in a structured way (these are the Ecology and Society 27(3): 7 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss3/art7/ IFRI and NIIS databases for the IAD framework, and the SES library and SESMAD for the SES framework; see Bernstein et al 2019; https://seslibrary.asu.edu/). Despite the existence of these databases, systematically linking analytical frameworks to data collection practices is not yet customary in publications (Bernstein et al 2019). Studies often do not address the nature of the underlying data and the actual data analysis process (Ratajczyk et al 2016).…”