定义公共领域的成功:解决问题的方向、多维度、规范和权衡

IF 1.8 3区 经济学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES International Journal of the Commons Pub Date : 2020-08-24 DOI:10.5334/ijc.994
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
{"title":"定义公共领域的成功:解决问题的方向、多维度、规范和权衡","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":null,"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":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"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\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of the Commons\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.994\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of the Commons","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.994","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

公地和社会生态系统研究考察了管理自然资源以改善社会和生态结果的制度安排。然而,对于成功并没有统一的定义。我们检查CPR和SES综合文献,以确定趋势,差距和挑战,以检查成功。我们解决:(1)文献中的空白,(2)多维度和权衡,以及(3)问题导向和成功定义之间的联系。为此,我们对大n研究、荟萃分析和心肺复苏术和SES治理的系统评价(n = 45)进行了全面回顾。我们发现了成功的七个维度,分别对应于集体选择、宪法和操作层面、时间维度和社会经济结果。大多数研究都没有涉及权力和权衡,也没有具体说明成功将适用于哪些社会群体。大多数研究从一个方面定义成功,最常见的是需求方供应(如生产力或生物多样性)。回归分析表明,对牧场或草原、相关研究和/或国家财产制度(即保护区)的研究更有可能使用较少的成功维度。问题导向往往与研究中考虑的成功维度无关,这表明成功的衡量标准往往不能充分解决综合研究中认识到的全套问题。这对旨在发展SES和CPR治理的一般知识的学者之间的集体行动提出了重大挑战。我们讨论了从多维度衡量成功的典范研究,解决了权力和权衡问题,最后提出了推进成功分析的四条建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Defining Success in the Commons: Addressing Problem Orientations, Multidimensionality, Norms, and Tradeoffs
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of the Commons
International Journal of the Commons ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
10.50%
发文量
17
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊最新文献
Can the Indonesian collective action norm of Gotong-Royong be strengthened with economic incentives? Comparing the implementation of an aquaculture irrigation policy program The Drivers of Farmers’ Participation in Collaborative Water Management: A French Perspective The Use of the Institutional Grammar 1.0 for Institutional Analysis: A Literature Review Diagnosing Participation and Inclusion in Collective Decision-Making in the Commons: Lessons from Ecuador Westphalian Sovereignty and the Free-Rider Conundrum in the Atmospheric Commons: Examining Global Governance Regimes for Addressing Climate Change Adaptation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1