The promise of common pool resource theory and the reality of commons projects

Saunders, Fred

doi:10.18352/bmgn-lchr.477

Cited by 26 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This confirms that cooperation is better in communities where members trust each other than in communities where trust is lacking. From a global perspective, this finding supports other studies demonstrating the importance of trust in human relations at various levels, and in various contexts (Ostrom 2000;Fischbacher et al 2001;Boyd and Richerson 2002;Gintis 2004;Andersson and Wengström 2011;Useche 2013;Saunders 2014). Cooperation is higher in communities that joined wildlife conservation earlier than in communities that joined later.…”

supporting

confidence: 88%

The role of institutions in community wildlife conservation in Zimbabwe

Ntuli¹,

Muchapondwa²

2018

Int J Commons

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Institutions play a significant role in stabilising large-scale cooperation in common pool resource management. Without restrictions to govern human behaviour, most natural resources are vulnerable to overexploitation. This study used a sample size of 336 households and community-level data from 30 communities around Gonarezhou National Park in Zimbabwe, to analyse the relationship between institutions and biodiversity outcomes in community-based wildlife conservation. Our results suggest a much stronger effect of institutions on biodiversity outcomes via the intermediacy of cooperation. Overall, the performance of most communities was below the desired level of institutional attributes that matter for conservation. Good institutions are an important ingredient for cooperation in the respective communities. Disaggregating the metric measure of institutions into its components shows that governance, monitoring and enforcement are more important for increased cooperation, while fairness of institutions seems to work against cooperation. Cooperation increases with trust and group size, and is also higher in communities that have endogenised punishment as opposed to communities that still rely on external enforcement of rules and regulations. Cooperation declines as we move from communal areas into the resettlement schemes and with increasing size of the resource system. A very strong positive relationship exists between cooperation and biodiversity outcomes implying that communities with elevated levels of cooperation are associated with a healthy wildlife population. Biodiversity outcomes are more successful in communities that either received wildlife management training, share information or those that are located far awayThe role of institutions in community wildlife conservation in Zimbabwe 135 from urban areas and are not very close to the boundary of the game park. Erecting an electric fence, the household head's age, the number of years in school and number of years living in the area negatively affect biodiversity outcomes. One policy implication of this study is to increase autonomy in CAMPFIRE communities so that they are able to invest in good institutions, which allows them to self-organise and to manage wildlife sustainably.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 88%

The role of institutions in community wildlife conservation in Zimbabwe

Ntuli¹,

Muchapondwa²

2018

Int J Commons

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most of the papers included here are concerned with development, policy or project interventions to manage common pool resources or public goods and services. Saunders (2014) suggests that commons scholarship may well have inadvertently contributed to the unfulfilled expectations of many such interventions partly because concepts such as participation, social capital, social learning and empowerment have proved difficult to craft into workable arrangements. Further, CPR theory often struggles to effectively conceptualise socially embedded resource users and so to fully understand norms, values and interests; in focusing on efficiency and functionality CPR theory may overlook the ways in which local dynamics are shaped by interactions at multiple scales (see also Blaikie 2006).…”

Section: Challenges To Institutional Scholarshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Furthering critical institutionalism

Cleaver

Koning²

2015

Int J Commons

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This special issue furthers the study of natural resource management from a critical institutional perspective. Critical institutionalism (CI) is a contemporary body of thought that explores how institutions dynamically mediate relationships between people, natural resources and society. It focuses on the complexity of institutions entwined in everyday social life, their historical formation, the interplay between formal and informal, traditional and modern arrangements, and the power relations that animate them. In such perspectives a social justice lens is often used to scrutinise the outcomes of institutional processes. We argue here that critical institutional approaches have potentially much to offer commons scholarship, particularly through the explanatory power of the concept of bricolage for better understanding institutional change. Critical institutional approaches, gathering momentum over the past 15 years or so, have excited considerable interest but the insights generated from different disciplinary perspectives remain insufficiently synthesised. Analyses emphasising complexity can be relatively illegible to policy-makers, a fact which lessens their reach. This special issue therefore aims to synthesise critical institutional ideas and so to lay the foundation for moving beyond the emergent stage to make meaningful academic and policy impact. In bringing together papers here we define and synthesise key themes of critical institutionalism, outline the concept of institutional bricolage and identity some key challenges facing this school of thought.

show abstract

“…A large body of literature has identified common problems with the conceptualization and implementation of CBNRM (e.g., Dressler et al 2010, Shackleton et al 2010. Many projects have relied on an oversimplified understanding of their context, in particular the influences on, and motivations of, local actors (Saunders 2014). Related to this, the design and implementation of projects is often static and inflexible, unable to take change into account (Armitage 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can scenario-planning support community-based natural resource management? Experiences from three countries in Latin America

Waylen¹,

Martín-Ortega²,

Blackstock³

et al. 2015

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) is a concept critical to managing social-ecological systems but whose implementation needs strengthening. Scenario planning is one approach that may offer benefits relevant to CBNRM but whose potential is not yet well understood. Therefore, we designed, trialed, and evaluated a scenario-planning method intended to support CBNRM in three cases, located in Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina. Implementing scenario planning was judged as worthwhile in all three cases, although aspects of it were challenging to facilitate. The benefits generated were relevant to strengthening CBNRM: encouraging the participation of local people and using their knowledge, enhanced consideration of and adaptation to future change, and supporting the development of systems thinking. Tracing exactly when and how these benefits arose was challenging, but two elements of the method seemed particularly useful. First, using a systematic approach to discuss how drivers of change may affect local social-ecological systems helped to foster systems thinking and identify connections between issues. Second, explicitly focusing on how to use and respond to scenarios helped identify specific practical activities, or "response options," that would support CBNRM despite the pressures of future change. Discussions about response options also highlighted the need for support by other actors, e.g., policy groups: this raised the question of when and how other actors and other sources of knowledge should be involved in scenario planning, so as to encourage their buy-in to actions identified by the process. We suggest that other CBNRM initiatives may benefit from adapting and applying scenario planning. However, these initiatives should be carefully monitored because further research is required to understand how and when scenario-planning methods may produce benefits, as well as their strengths and weaknesses versus other methods.

show abstract

The promise of common pool resource theory and the reality of commons projects

Cited by 26 publications

References 21 publications

The role of institutions in community wildlife conservation in Zimbabwe

The role of institutions in community wildlife conservation in Zimbabwe

Furthering critical institutionalism

Can scenario-planning support community-based natural resource management? Experiences from three countries in Latin America

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About