This introduction outlines peer production (P2P) as a type of social relations, a technological infrastructure and a new mode of production and property, whereby participants have maximum freedom to co-operate and connect. In the last decades, the author notes that the rise of peer production has been driven by three main factors: the sustainability crisis, neoliberalism and low cost information and communication technologies (ICTs). These factors have led to three main streams of peer production: firm-hosted peer production or platform capitalism (user-centric open innovation business models; the so-called sharing and gig economy); the commons (local and digital commons, the solidarity economy); and a hybrid commons-based peer production operating on the models of platform and open cooperativism. In turn, the author establishes his post-hegemonic perspective, focusing on commons-based P2P which is facilitated today by the architectural design of the Internet. To conclude, Vangelis proposes the book’s intention as to produce a critical dialogue between the different approaches to the commons, putting forth a postcapitalist commons-orientated transition beyond neoliberalism. freedom to co-operate and connect. In the last decades, the author notes that the rise of peer production has been driven by three main factors: the sustainability crisis, neoliberalism and low cost information and communication technologies (ICTs). These factors have led to three main streams of peer production: firm-hosted peer production or platform capitalism (user-centric open innovation business models; the so-called sharing and gig economy); the commons (local and digital commons, the solidarity economy); and a hybrid commons-based peer production operating on the models of platform and open cooperativism. In turn, the author establishes his post-hegemonic perspective, focusing on commons-based P2P which is facilitated today by the architectural design of the Internet. To conclude, Vangelis proposes the book’s intention as to produce a critical dialogue between the different approaches to the commons, putting forth a postcapitalist commons-orientated transition beyond neoliberalism.
{"title":"Introducing the Commons","authors":"Vangelis Papadimitropoulos","doi":"10.16997/book46.a","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.16997/book46.a","url":null,"abstract":"This introduction outlines peer production (P2P) as a type of social relations, a technological infrastructure and a new mode of production and property, whereby participants have maximum freedom to co-operate and connect. In the last decades, the author notes that the rise of peer production has been driven by three main factors: the sustainability crisis, neoliberalism and low cost information and communication technologies (ICTs). These factors have led to three main streams of peer production: firm-hosted peer production or platform capitalism (user-centric open innovation business models; the so-called sharing and gig economy); the commons (local and digital commons, the solidarity economy); and a hybrid commons-based peer production operating on the models of platform and open cooperativism. In turn, the author establishes his post-hegemonic perspective, focusing on commons-based P2P which is facilitated today by the architectural design of the Internet. To conclude, Vangelis proposes the book’s intention as to produce a critical dialogue between the different approaches to the commons, putting forth a postcapitalist commons-orientated transition beyond neoliberalism. freedom to co-operate and connect. In the last decades, the author notes that the rise of peer production has been driven by three main factors: the sustainability crisis, neoliberalism and low cost information and communication technologies (ICTs). These factors have led to three main streams of peer production: firm-hosted peer production or platform capitalism (user-centric open innovation business models; the so-called sharing and gig economy); the commons (local and digital commons, the solidarity economy); and a hybrid commons-based peer production operating on the models of platform and open cooperativism. In turn, the author establishes his post-hegemonic perspective, focusing on commons-based P2P which is facilitated today by the architectural design of the Internet. To conclude, Vangelis proposes the book’s intention as to produce a critical dialogue between the different approaches to the commons, putting forth a postcapitalist commons-orientated transition beyond neoliberalism.","PeriodicalId":47250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of the Commons","volume":"53 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2020-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83099440","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Conclusion:","authors":"","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv199tdcz.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv199tdcz.7","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of the Commons","volume":" 32","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2020-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72380739","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Within ‘The Reformist Commons’, the author establishes the views of a wide range of reformist theorists. This reformist approach to the commons combines liberal, social democratic, socialist and revolutionary elements in multiple variants. In the context of Benkler’s three basic future scenarios for the commons the author goes onto critically engage with the work of a number of thinkers who have further argued for the autonomisation of commons-based peer production in such models as the green governance (David Bollier and Silke Helfrich) and collaborative commons (Jeremy Rifkin) and platform cooperativism (Trebor Scholz) . Also discussed are Bauwens and Kostakis’s model of open cooperativism incorporating the ecological model of Design Global Manufacture, cosmolocalism and a partner state abetting commons-based peer production, Adam Arvidsson and Nicolai Peiterson’s ‘productive publics’ and digital distributism (Douglas Rushkoff). The author concludes with Erik Olin Wright’s arguments for how institutional space might be freed up for strategic action towards a commons-orientated transition. Wright’s perspective, the author argues offers the most holistic political alternative by integrating the self-instituting power of the people into a strategic pluralism based on multiple pathways of social empowerment, embodied in a variety of structural transformations. This may function as an institutional multi-format for the various reformist approaches advocated by the other thinkers.
{"title":"The Reformist Commons","authors":"Vangelis Papadimitropoulos","doi":"10.16997/book46.c","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.16997/book46.c","url":null,"abstract":"Within ‘The Reformist Commons’, the author establishes the views of a wide range of reformist theorists. This reformist approach to the commons combines liberal, social democratic, socialist and revolutionary elements in multiple variants. In the context of Benkler’s three basic future scenarios for the commons the author goes onto critically engage with the work of a number of thinkers who have further argued for the autonomisation of commons-based peer production in such models as the green governance (David Bollier and Silke Helfrich) and collaborative commons (Jeremy Rifkin) and platform cooperativism (Trebor Scholz) . Also discussed are Bauwens and Kostakis’s model of open cooperativism incorporating the ecological model of Design Global Manufacture, cosmolocalism and a partner state abetting commons-based peer production, Adam Arvidsson and Nicolai Peiterson’s ‘productive publics’ and digital distributism (Douglas Rushkoff). The author concludes with Erik Olin Wright’s arguments for how institutional space might be freed up for strategic action towards a commons-orientated transition. Wright’s perspective, the author argues offers the most holistic political alternative by integrating the self-instituting power of the people into a strategic pluralism based on multiple pathways of social empowerment, embodied in a variety of structural transformations. This may function as an institutional multi-format for the various reformist approaches advocated by the other thinkers.","PeriodicalId":47250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of the Commons","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2020-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84674190","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Back Matter","authors":"","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv199tdcz.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv199tdcz.11","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of the Commons","volume":"85 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2020-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73235043","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Index","authors":"","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv199tdcz.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv199tdcz.10","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of the Commons","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2020-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85804827","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article, originally a speech in the conference, Lecons de Droit Compare sur les Communs, Sciences-Po, Paris, explores current developments in theoretical thinking about the commons. It keys off contemporary reconsiderations of Garret Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” and Elinor Ostrom’s response to Hardin in Governing the Commons and later work. Ostrom was among the best-known critics of Hardin’s idea of a “tragedy,” but Ostrom’s own work has also raised some questions in more recent commons literature. One key question is the very uncertain relationship between community-based resource control and democratic rights. A second key question revolves around the understanding of commons on the one hand as limited common regimes, central to Ostrom’s work, or as open access, as espoused by more recent advocates of widespread access to information and communications networks.
这篇文章最初是在巴黎科学院的Lecons de Droit Compare sur les Communits会议上发表的演讲，探讨了当前关于公域的理论思考的发展。它开启了对加勒特·哈丁的《下议院的悲剧》以及埃莉诺·奥斯特罗姆在《治理下议院》和后来的作品中对哈丁的回应的当代反思。奥斯特罗姆是哈丁“悲剧”思想的最著名批评者之一，但奥斯特罗姆自己的作品也在最近的公共文学中提出了一些问题。一个关键问题是以社区为基础的资源控制与民主权利之间的关系非常不确定。第二个关键问题围绕着对公域的理解，一方面，公域是奥斯特罗姆工作的核心，是有限的共同制度，或者是开放获取，正如最近广泛获取信息和通信网络的倡导者所支持的那样。
{"title":"Thinking about the Commons","authors":"Carol M. Rose","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3487612","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3487612","url":null,"abstract":"This article, originally a speech in the conference, Lecons de Droit Compare sur les Communs, Sciences-Po, Paris, explores current developments in theoretical thinking about the commons. It keys off contemporary reconsiderations of Garret Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” and Elinor Ostrom’s response to Hardin in Governing the Commons and later work. Ostrom was among the best-known critics of Hardin’s idea of a “tragedy,” but Ostrom’s own work has also raised some questions in more recent commons literature. One key question is the very uncertain relationship between community-based resource control and democratic rights. A second key question revolves around the understanding of commons on the one hand as limited common regimes, central to Ostrom’s work, or as open access, as espoused by more recent advocates of widespread access to information and communications networks.","PeriodicalId":47250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of the Commons","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2020-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46287661","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Managing the wildland-urban interface (WUI) is a widely-recognized land use problem plagued by a fractured geography of land parcels, management jurisdictions, and governance mandates and objectives. People who work in this field have suggested a variety of approaches to managing this interface, from informal governance to contracting to insurance. To date, however, none of these scholars have fully embraced the dynamism, uncertainty, and complexity of the WUI — that is, its status as a complex adaptive system. In focusing almost exclusively on the management of this interface to control wildfire, this scholarship largely ignores the factor that rampant wildfire is itself the product of incursions into important ecosystem services on both sides of the interface. In many cases, people tend to expand out towards the wildland not just for economics (cheaper housing) but also because of a suite of ecosystem services that are readily accessible at the interface, including aesthetics, a cleaner environment, and recreational opportunities. As the wildfire problem amply demonstrates, these settlers then become upset when other aspects of ecosystem function invade their lives, but those invasions include not just wildfire disasters but also more pernicious problems such as diseases, allergens, and wildlife. As such, development at the WUI can create a multifaceted desire to control several "undesirable" aspects of ecosystem function while simultaneously promoting the ecosystem services that residents desire, complicating land use management on both sides of a line that is itself often moving or transforming into a transition or buffer zone. To focus solely on wildfire, in other words, may oversimplify an increasingly complex management problem with significant policy implications. While we cannot and will not attempt to resolve all of these policy issues in this article, we do propose that adaptive management may provide a mechanism for dealing with the complexity of managing changing ecosystem functions and services at the WUI, even when — and perhaps especially because — the private lands and wildlands are usually subject to different land use regimes. We begin with an overview of adaptive management, then discuss the hard but common case of fractured landscape management. We then explore the potential for adaptive management to help negotiate this fractured landscape in a changing world, starting with the classic issue of wildfire management but also suggesting possible expansions.
{"title":"Adaptive Management for Ecosystem Services Across the Wildland-Urban\u0000 Interface","authors":"Robin Kundis Craig, J. B. Ruhl","doi":"10.5334/ijc.986","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.986","url":null,"abstract":"Managing the wildland-urban interface (WUI) is a widely-recognized land use problem plagued by a fractured geography of land parcels, management jurisdictions, and governance mandates and objectives. People who work in this field have suggested a variety of approaches to managing this interface, from informal governance to contracting to insurance. To date, however, none of these scholars have fully embraced the dynamism, uncertainty, and complexity of the WUI — that is, its status as a complex adaptive system. In focusing almost exclusively on the management of this interface to control wildfire, this scholarship largely ignores the factor that rampant wildfire is itself the product of incursions into important ecosystem services on both sides of the interface. In many cases, people tend to expand out towards the wildland not just for economics (cheaper housing) but also because of a suite of ecosystem services that are readily accessible at the interface, including aesthetics, a cleaner environment, and recreational opportunities. As the wildfire problem amply demonstrates, these settlers then become upset when other aspects of ecosystem function invade their lives, but those invasions include not just wildfire disasters but also more pernicious problems such as diseases, allergens, and wildlife. As such, development at the WUI can create a multifaceted desire to control several \"undesirable\" aspects of ecosystem function while simultaneously promoting the ecosystem services that residents desire, complicating land use management on both sides of a line that is itself often moving or transforming into a transition or buffer zone. To focus solely on wildfire, in other words, may oversimplify an increasingly complex management problem with significant policy implications. \u0000 \u0000While we cannot and will not attempt to resolve all of these policy issues in this article, we do propose that adaptive management may provide a mechanism for dealing with the complexity of managing changing ecosystem functions and services at the WUI, even when — and perhaps especially because — the private lands and wildlands are usually subject to different land use regimes. We begin with an overview of adaptive management, then discuss the hard but common case of fractured landscape management. We then explore the potential for adaptive management to help negotiate this fractured landscape in a changing world, starting with the classic issue of wildfire management but also suggesting possible expansions.","PeriodicalId":47250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of the Commons","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2020-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74904604","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper explores the relationship between private and common property. It starts with the state of nature, works its way through Roman law, and finishes with a discussion of the application of these principles in a modern context. It explains how the intensification of property use often leads to the need for a public trust doctrine for common pool assets, and explains why long and skinny assets have single dedicated uses, chiefly for communication and transportation which enable them to link together productive property sites used for residence, manufacture, and farming. These long and skinny assets have a large perimeter relative to area, which makes them difficult to defend on the one side, and often exposes them to multiple legal regimes with inconsistent commands. It deals with such specific issues as the distinction between alluvion and avulsion, and offers a detailed analysis of the difficulty of permitting oil and gas pipelines in the United States.1
{"title":"Property Rights: Long and Skinny","authors":"R. Epstein","doi":"10.5334/IJC.993","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/IJC.993","url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores the relationship between private and common property. It starts with the state of nature, works its way through Roman law, and finishes with a discussion of the application of these principles in a modern context. It explains how the intensification of property use often leads to the need for a public trust doctrine for common pool assets, and explains why long and skinny assets have single dedicated uses, chiefly for communication and transportation which enable them to link together productive property sites used for residence, manufacture, and farming. These long and skinny assets have a large perimeter relative to area, which makes them difficult to defend on the one side, and often exposes them to multiple legal regimes with inconsistent commands. It deals with such specific issues as the distinction between alluvion and avulsion, and offers a detailed analysis of the difficulty of permitting oil and gas pipelines in the United States.1","PeriodicalId":47250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of the Commons","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2020-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45924717","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the first decade of the 21s century, copyright was high on the political agenda as activists and academics criticised how stricter implementations of copyright laws limited the public access to culture and knowledge and enclosed the information commons. A decade later, streaming media and data mining have changed the information-political agenda, shifting the focus from piracy to privacy, giving concepts such as access to knowledge and information commons new meanings. This article relates the copyfights of the early 2000nds to more recent copyright discussions. It relies on a series of interviews with members of the Pirate Party, conducted between 2011 and 2015 and connects them to more recent debates about the European Union Directive on Copyright for the Digital Single Market (COM/2016/0593) that was passed in march 2019. The article asks if and how the information commons movement and the international political agenda about intellectual property rights and access to information have changed with the rise of a digital economy build around streaming media and data mining.
{"title":"Information Commons Between Enclosure and Exposure: Regulating Piracy and Privacy in the EU","authors":"Martin Fredriksson","doi":"10.5334/IJC.1034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/IJC.1034","url":null,"abstract":"In the first decade of the 21s century, copyright was high on the political agenda as activists and academics criticised how stricter implementations of copyright laws limited the public access to culture and knowledge and enclosed the information commons. A decade later, streaming media and data mining have changed the information-political agenda, shifting the focus from piracy to privacy, giving concepts such as access to knowledge and information commons new meanings. This article relates the copyfights of the early 2000nds to more recent copyright discussions. It relies on a series of interviews with members of the Pirate Party, conducted between 2011 and 2015 and connects them to more recent debates about the European Union Directive on Copyright for the Digital Single Market (COM/2016/0593) that was passed in march 2019. The article asks if and how the information commons movement and the international political agenda about intellectual property rights and access to information have changed with the rise of a digital economy build around streaming media and data mining.","PeriodicalId":47250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of the Commons","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2020-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48261686","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A. Barnett, Stefan Partelow, Ulrich J. Frey, Alejandro García-Lozano, María del Mar Mancha-Cisneros, Christoph Oberlack, Elicia Ratajczyk, Hillary Smith, S. Villamayor-Tomas, C. Whitney
Commons and social-ecological systems research examines institutional arrangements for governing natural resources to improve social and ecological outcomes. However, no universal definition of success exists. We examine the CPR and SES synthesis literature to identify trends, gaps and challenges for examining success. We address: (1) gaps in the literature, (2) multidimensionality and tradeoffs, and (3) and the link between problem orientation and definitions of success. To do this we conduct a comprehensive review of Large-N studies, meta-analyses and systematic reviews of CPR and SES governance (n = 45). We found seven dimensions of success, corresponding to collective choice, constitutional and operational levels, temporal dimensions, and socio-economic outcomes. Most studies did not address power and tradeoffs, or specify the social groups to whom success would apply. The majority of studies defined success in one dimension, most often demand-side provisioning (e.g., productivity or biodiversity). A regression analysis suggests that studies on rangelands or grasslands, correlative studies, and/or studies of state property systems (i.e., protected areas) were more likely to use fewer dimensions of success. Problem orientations often did not correlate with dimensions of success considered in a study, suggesting that measures of success often cannot adequately address the full suite of problems recognized in synthesis research. This presents a significant challenge for collective action among scholars who aim to develop general knowledge on SES and CPR governance. We discuss exemplary studies that measure success as multidimensional, address power and tradeoffs, and conclude with four recommendations for advancing the analysis of success.
{"title":"Defining Success in the Commons: Addressing Problem Orientations, Multidimensionality, Norms, and Tradeoffs","authors":"A. Barnett, Stefan Partelow, Ulrich J. Frey, Alejandro García-Lozano, María del Mar Mancha-Cisneros, Christoph Oberlack, Elicia Ratajczyk, Hillary Smith, S. Villamayor-Tomas, C. Whitney","doi":"10.5334/ijc.994","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.994","url":null,"abstract":"Commons and social-ecological systems research examines institutional arrangements for governing natural resources to improve social and ecological outcomes. However, no universal definition of success exists. We examine the CPR and SES synthesis literature to identify trends, gaps and challenges for examining success. We address: (1) gaps in the literature, (2) multidimensionality and tradeoffs, and (3) and the link between problem orientation and definitions of success. To do this we conduct a comprehensive review of Large-N studies, meta-analyses and systematic reviews of CPR and SES governance (n = 45). We found seven dimensions of success, corresponding to collective choice, constitutional and operational levels, temporal dimensions, and socio-economic outcomes. Most studies did not address power and tradeoffs, or specify the social groups to whom success would apply. The majority of studies defined success in one dimension, most often demand-side provisioning (e.g., productivity or biodiversity). A regression analysis suggests that studies on rangelands or grasslands, correlative studies, and/or studies of state property systems (i.e., protected areas) were more likely to use fewer dimensions of success. Problem orientations often did not correlate with dimensions of success considered in a study, suggesting that measures of success often cannot adequately address the full suite of problems recognized in synthesis research. This presents a significant challenge for collective action among scholars who aim to develop general knowledge on SES and CPR governance. We discuss exemplary studies that measure success as multidimensional, address power and tradeoffs, and conclude with four recommendations for advancing the analysis of success.","PeriodicalId":47250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of the Commons","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2020-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43633700","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：