Threats to Common‐Pool Resources and the Importance of Forums: On the Emergence of Cooperation in CPR Problem Settings

Abstract

This paper focuses on cooperation among organizations in a common‐pool resource (CPR) problem situation. Cooperation is particularly challenging in settings where resource degradation is produced by a variety of different sectors and parts of the population; and where the problem, as well as public responsibilities, transcend borders and jurisdictions. Focusing on transboundary water quality management in the Rhine catchment area, we ask: What drives two actors in a CPR problem situation to cooperate with each other? We argue that the degree of threat to a CPR is an important driver for collective action, and focus on actors’ exposure to and perception of a threat to a CPR. Furthermore, we rely on applications of the ecology of games framework (EGF), taking into account the larger institutional context of CPR management. This allows us to test whether actors’ participation in forums, such as regional and international water body associations, helps to overcome the CPR problem by further enhancing interactions among actors. Based on survey data and applying advanced network statistics (exponential random graph models [ERGM]), we conclude that although problem exposure is one factor that enhances joint cooperation, participation in forums plays an even bigger role for cooperation in a CPR problem setting. Our study contributes to research on cooperation in CPR problem settings, highlights the need to more systematically include the effects that CPR problems have on actors when analyzing CPR problem settings, and stresses the function of forums as triggers for cooperation in CPR problem situations.

Context matters: horizontal and hierarchical network governance structures in Vietnam’s sanitation sector

“…This iterative optimization proceeds until the value of the approximate likelihood function no longer changes, that is, when the differences between the sufficient statistics of the observed network and the average of the sufficient statistics in the sample of simulated networks are no longer significant (i.e., P > 0.05; Cranmer and Desmarais 2011). ERGMs are gaining in use to study processes of network formation (e.g., Leifeld and Schneider 2012, Fischer and Sciarini 2016, Fischer et al 2017, Herzog and Ingold 2019.…”

“…This observation is mostly true when actors are free to choose their information exchange partners. In such situations where actors can choose freely, they tend to exchange information with others with similar issue specializations or perceptions of challenges (Herzog and Ingold 2019). Thus, a context that fosters horizontal governance network structures is likely to produce information exchange patterns influenced by homophily of actors with similar issue specialization or challenge perceptions.…”

Social-ecological network analysis for sustainability sciences: a systematic review and innovative research agenda for the future

“…Social-ecological networks (SENs) characterized along a spectrum specifying the degree of explicit network representation of system components and dynamics. analyze water management outcomes by measuring management collaborations (social edges) and link these to specific places (social-to-ecological edges), but do not account for relationships among ecosystem components, such as hydrologic connections (ecological edges), which could be used to account for up and downstream power asymmetries among collaborators (Lebel et al 2005, Sayles 2018, Herzog and Ingold 2019. This illustrative example omits ecological relations, but a network omitting social relations would also be partially articulated.…”

Power asymmetries in social networks of ecosystem services governance

“…Actors within the network boundaries were defined as the user groups who benefit from ES or who affect them, either positively or negatively (Herzog and Ingold, 2019;Reed et al, 2009). In total, 52 actors were selected during a second workshop organized in May 2016, where participants (i.e.…”

“…We considered a group of individuals as a single actor in the social network analysis (i.e. with only one node representing them), following previous literature (Alonso Roldán et al, 2015;Herzog and Ingold, 2019;Prell et al, 2009).…”