General comments on the book chapter

I greatly enjoyed the draft chapter on institutions- it did an excellent job of organizing and summarizing the literature on common-pool resources and provided significant analysis to the extent that I felt I learned new, concrete ideas after finishing the draft.

The Dasgupta introduction is also interesting, although I do not understand exactly how the two pieces will fit together. Given that Dasgupta is trying to outline the weaknesses in the CPR institutions approach, ("institutional failure"), it may make sense for the Dasgupta piece to follow rather than lead the chapter (e.g. outlining gaps in the framework presented in the chapter).

At two points, the manuscript discusses adding or subtracting sections (footnotes a + b). 

- a: I would be interested in learning more about the kinds of rules employed in these institutions, and how they vary as compared to centralized institutions.

- b: I would not cut this list or section - it provides tangible ideas for the reader which helps to ground the discussion in concrete terms. This is helpful.

It would also be useful to have more on "why some efforts tend to be more successful than others" (Dietz, Ostrom & Stern, 2003), which is a great article.

Finally, one point where this chapter could tie itself into the overall framework of coupled human-environment systems (CHES) is 4.5.1 – "Attributes of the Resource." Although I don't know how much these literatures overlap, could ideas of resilience and vulnerability as measures of the condition / state of a resource be tied in here? Jess Newman gave an example of how community-based management of mangrove ecosystems deteriorated as the resource itself lost its resilience. This could be one way to link these ideas to the other chapters / CHES framework.

I agree with all of what Leah said (except isn't the Partha piece in the appendix?).  But, one comment to build upon her ideas --

Perhaps one way to link this chapter to the others is to discuss the extent to which CPR management at a local scale must be done in the context of global climate change problems (discussion question 2).  I've been struggling with this question all weekend.  Can sustainable management practices ( of the "precautionary principle" type)  at "local scales" lead to an aggregate sustainable system?  Or does the way we can import/export goods allow us to effectively remove the effects our actions completely?  Basically, do we ever get completely unidirectional externalities at the global scale, where actions locally have zero impact but globally have a huge impact?  All of the examples I can think of (e.g., deforestation, burning fossil fuels), have impacts at several scales, but include a "local scale" impact if you push a bit.

In addition, I'd appreciate learning more about how one designs global institutions which facilitate and allow for decentralized local management.

Finally, this chapter could be longer.  No need to cut, if you ask me.

Previously Leah Stokes wrote:

I greatly enjoyed the draft chapter on institutions- it did an excellent job of organizing and summarizing the literature on common-pool resources and provided significant analysis to the extent that I felt I learned new, concrete ideas after finishing the draft.

The Dasgupta introduction is also interesting, although I do not understand exactly how the two pieces will fit together. Given that Dasgupta is trying to outline the weaknesses in the CPR institutions approach, ("institutional failure"), it may make sense for the Dasgupta piece to follow rather than lead the chapter (e.g. outlining gaps in the framework presented in the chapter).

At two points, the manuscript discusses adding or subtracting sections (footnotes a + b). 

- a: I would be interested in learning more about the kinds of rules employed in these institutions, and how they vary as compared to centralized institutions.

- b: I would not cut this list or section - it provides tangible ideas for the reader which helps to ground the discussion in concrete terms. This is helpful.

It would also be useful to have more on "why some efforts tend to be more successful than others" (Dietz, Ostrom & Stern, 2003), which is a great article.

Finally, one point where this chapter could tie itself into the overall framework of coupled human-environment systems (CHES) is 4.5.1 – "Attributes of the Resource." Although I don't know how much these literatures overlap, could ideas of resilience and vulnerability as measures of the condition / state of a resource be tied in here? Jess Newman gave an example of how community-based management of mangrove ecosystems deteriorated as the resource itself lost its resilience. This could be one way to link these ideas to the other chapters / CHES framework.

I agree with both Leah and Elizabeth - I think this chapter and its appendix did an outstanding job of introducing and unfolding new concepts.  A more technical question: how will the appendix be physically presented in the book?  I think it brings in extremely important and relevant ideas for Chapter 4, and would love to see it incorporated into this chapter, or at least presented in a manner that truly prompts the reader to spend time with it, rather than seeing it as an optional addition to this chapter.

Elizabeth's question and Topic 2 from the student group both caught my attention.  I think that the only real way to make this chapter relevant to the practice and implementation of sustainability science principles is to find concrete answers to these questions.  While I do not know how to answer them, my initial response to the first question (about whether sustainable management practices at a local level can lead to sustainable practices at a global level) is that, in fact, effective local practices are the only way to achieve sustainable practices at a global level.  From what I gathered from the readings thus far, it seems that local social and cultural norms and institutions vary widely.  Thus, implementing a top-down structure does not seem feasible, as at the local level any rules imposed may not be fully accepted and may not work within the existing institutional framework.  By building sustainable management practices at the local level, each implemented slightly differently but with the same overarching goal, could ultimately achieve global sustainability goals.  However, I am interested in hearing what others think of this viewpoint, and if others have different answers to this or other questions.

Overall this week's reading was very interesting, flowed well, and was a pleasure to read. I have a few comments and questions organized first by larger (engaging) questions and then by minor comments:

I had a few thoughts concerning the "bridging" of these chapters with the rest of the book:

Although I have been well-steeped in the concepts of externalities and market failures, reading Dasgupta’s piece on “Natural Capital and Institutional Failure” in light of our previous discussions of emergent properties and complex adaptive systems has made me question these canonical concepts. 

Last week we examined how human-environment systems go through “adaptive cycles” of growth, accumulation, collapse, learning and reorganization (Holling 2001). At its core, this idea of ‘panarchy’ implies that systems are dynamic and changing, and that a system “collapse” is a natural part of system evolution.

However, the ideas of “institutional failure” and “market failure” seem at odds with the concept of adaptive systems, as they implicitly assume that the institutional/market system is static.  The examples that Dasgupta offers include “the local community whose norms have collapsed; or…the household where the dominant male insists on growing fruit trees….rather than trees that would supply the woodfuel the female is expected to gather from the receding woodlands”.  However, these “failures” are only “failures” because they deviate from what the system “used to do” and from what we expect “should” happen.  Our expectations, however, are based on assumptions of an unchanging system; because we experienced one set of norms in the past, we expect those norms to continue into the future; because we experienced one type of livelihood choice in the past, we view that choice as being the “right” one going forward.  Social psychology, behavioral economists, and institutional theorists have repeatedly proved that norms can and do change over time (Feldman, 1984; Ostrom 2000), as do human perceptions of “appropriate” economic outcomes.

As we saw last week, complex human-environment systems are NOT static, and therefore it seems problematic to label deviations from a fixed (arbitrary) economic outcome as “failures”.  It may be more appropriate to accept the fact that human-environment systems change, adapt, collapse, and reorganize, and realize that many of the economic and social “failures” we experience are actually adaptations to a dynamic system.  This in no way prevents us from attempting to maintain a status quo if we believe that the status quo is actually the “best” state of the system, but we should do so self-consciously by being aware that the larger systems (upon which economic and social outcomes are based) are dynamic, and will therefore continually push us away from our selected status quo.

I would echo Leah's general enjoyment of the chapter by Lin Ostrom - I found it clear and insightful, and also feel like I learned from reading it and Dasgupta's chapter that I will definitely apply to my overall understanding of sustainability.

The two papers are quite different from each other - including different terminology used. It is Dasgupta who introduces us to the acronym CPR for Common-Ppoperty Resources, though a similar term - Common-Pool Resources also appears in Ostrom's writing. Before publication, it might be good to get consistency on how this similar or identical terms are defined (or distinguished if they're not the same).

I wonder if the two sections could be combined somehow - if not I think Dasgupta's text should perhaps go first as he quite clearly spells out several useful terms. Perhaps these are clear, but it seems like it's always good to define terms. We have "externality", "institution", and several useful examples spelled out.

I also agree with Leah that these sections don't need to be any shorter - I'd like to see more explanation of the sections for both footnotes. In Dasgupta's paper too, there were several sections that I wanted more information on - a few examples:

• In the first section, page 2 - there's a paragraph that ends with a totally provocative "the consequences of [externalities involving the environment] has been the very high population growth the poor world has experienced in recent decades." This is a new idea to me, and I guess I can go look up the references, but it seems like it might slow down the reader who is coming upon this idea for the first time.
  
• In the first section on externalities - it's well explained that it's difficult to quantify externalities, but I'm not clear on what a firm quantification would offer. I assume there are thoughts on this - maybe too much to fit in this section, but some greater clarity on what the World Bank or other would/should do with their quantification of nature's subsidies would help convince the read that the exercise is worthwhile.
  

Previously Leah Stokes wrote:

I greatly enjoyed the draft chapter on institutions- it did an excellent job of organizing and summarizing the literature on common-pool resources and provided significant analysis to the extent that I felt I learned new, concrete ideas after finishing the draft.

The Dasgupta introduction is also interesting, although I do not understand exactly how the two pieces will fit together. Given that Dasgupta is trying to outline the weaknesses in the CPR institutions approach, ("institutional failure"), it may make sense for the Dasgupta piece to follow rather than lead the chapter (e.g. outlining gaps in the framework presented in the chapter).

At two points, the manuscript discusses adding or subtracting sections (footnotes a + b). 

- a: I would be interested in learning more about the kinds of rules employed in these institutions, and how they vary as compared to centralized institutions.

- b: I would not cut this list or section - it provides tangible ideas for the reader which helps to ground the discussion in concrete terms. This is helpful.

It would also be useful to have more on "why some efforts tend to be more successful than others" (Dietz, Ostrom & Stern, 2003), which is a great article.

Finally, one point where this chapter could tie itself into the overall framework of coupled human-environment systems (CHES) is 4.5.1 – "Attributes of the Resource." Although I don't know how much these literatures overlap, could ideas of resilience and vulnerability as measures of the condition / state of a resource be tied in here? Jess Newman gave an example of how community-based management of mangrove ecosystems deteriorated as the resource itself lost its resilience. This could be one way to link these ideas to the other chapters / CHES framework.

The Minnesota group met last Wednesday and have the following comments on the first 2 questions initiated from the book chapter and raised in the discussion:

Q1.  Do the lessons learned from communal-management of extractable natural resources apply when examining management of other resources such as the oceans, atmosphere, and knowledge? (Nature of the resource)

-          Regarding knowledge as a common pool resource: the Minnesota students expressed confusion over how knowledge as a public good fits into sustainability.  Granted, knowledge is capacity building but is only lost when generations shift, whereas the utility of the oceans and atmosphere are lost via degradation and direct impact.  The generation and protection of knowledge is important for the success of sustainability science, but is fundamentally very different from resources such as the oceans and atmosphere.

-          Option value – that this is easier to calculate for particular resources than for biodiversity as a whole, for example, but option values may be instrumental in moving institutions towards sustainable goals. 

-          So what about oceans and atmosphere?  The literature names trust as a key property of successful institutions, but it is hard to build trust when people are not going to be face to face ever; when the political strength of actors is very unequal; and when there is no good example of success (given distinct differences between climate change and SO2, ozone)

-          Smaller-scale examples of successful communal management typically involve few actors.  Climate change and sustainability involve many governments, corporations, and the entire population

Q2. To what extent can the lessons learned from studying small-scale systems be applied to larger scales, regional or global?  (Scales of governance)

-          So now what?  What do we do about these hugely open resources?

-          Social “alternative stable states” (akin to abolition of slavery) between fighting climate change in earnest or not – how could governance get us to that point?

-          How to enforce the sticks and carrots that maintain community structure on local levels when you’re talking about the international, diplomacy-driven level?