In her paper from 2007, Elinor Ostrom calls for diagnostic frameworks for identifying key factors of (sustainable) resource use rather than attempts to prescribe simple, universal solutions to complex problems. We chose this paper, because after Walker’s paper from last week we were left curious about the community-driven system management that did not seem to follow Walker’s model of costs, risks and benefits. Therefore, we went for more insight about community-managed social-ecological systems (SESs).

Ostrom describes SESs with a hierarchical framework, where variables can be decomposed and analysed. At the highest level, there are 6 variables that interact with each other: Resource system (RS), Resource units (RU), Interactions (I), Governance systems (GS), Users (U) and Outcomes (O). These are placed in certain social, economic, and political settings and further interact with related ecosystems. All highest-level variables can be decomposed into second-tier variables: RS can have properties such as clarity of system boundaries, size, productivity and location, RU may be characterized e.g. by mobility, growth rate, economic value or spatial and temporal distribution, and so on. Ostrom lists 52 second-tier variables. The significance of the variables in determining whether the SES is sustainable or not is highly variable between different systems.

There are a number of very interesting example cases, for which the key determining factors of sustainability were outlined. The framework reveals, for example, that Garrett Hardin’s case of the tragedy of the commons is hardly a general case but rather has quite specific assumptions about the system.

As people who try to capture important factors and turn them into models that describe phenomena at general levels, some of us were intimidated by the idea that every case should be treated separately. We were repeatedly caught trying to identify some general features that would explain why some systems are sustainable and others are not. Transparency of the governance and repeated face-to-face contact with other resource users seemed to be examples of these. We were thinking about the amount of work required if every SES was to be decomposed and described separately. On the other hand, every conservation management plan is unique anyway, and identifying the key factors in each case would seem like a reasonable thing to do in the context of management planning.

We were wondering how well the framework could be used for forecasting how a system might develop. For example, Ostrom points out the problem of “roving bandits” that destroy resources in one place and move on to another one. In this kind of situation, local institutions are often too slow to develop and implement strategies to prevent the grossly unsustainable use of resources. For this kind of cases a framework would be useful that would enable the local community to foresee and prevent the situation. We were also left curious about the implications: what to do after the key factors are identified?

Link to the paper:
Ostrom, E. 2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. – PNAS 104: 15181-15187.