Adoption of community monitoring improves common pool resource management across contexts

Abstract

Pervasive overuse and degradation of common pool resources (CPRs) is a global concern. To sustainably manage CPRs, effective governance institutions are essential. A large literature has developed to describe the institutional design features employed by communities that successfully manage their CPRs. Yet, these designs remain far from universally adopted. We focus on one prominent institutional design feature, community monitoring, and ask whether nongovernmental organizations or governments can facilitate its adoption and whether adoption of monitoring affects CPR use. To answer these questions, we implemented randomized controlled trials in six countries. The harmonized trials randomly assigned the introduction of community monitoring to 400 communities, with data collection in an additional 347 control communities. Most of the 400 communities adopted regular monitoring practices over the course of a year. In a meta-analysis of the experimental results from the six sites, we find that the community monitoring reduced CPR use and increased user satisfaction and knowledge by modest amounts. Our findings demonstrate that community monitoring can improve CPR management in disparate contexts, even when monitoring is externally initiated rather than homegrown. These findings provide guidance for the design of future programs and policies intended to develop monitoring capabilities in communities. Furthermore, our harmonized, multisite trial provides sustainability science with a new way to study the complexity of socioecological systems and builds generalizable insights about how to improve CPR management.

Understanding Governance in the Jaragua-Bahoruco-Enriquillo Biosphere Reserve: An Empirical Approach

“…Governance can be measured by building indices that summarize the sets or dimensions of the related variables in a similar way to the measurement of factors of social capital or perception of conservation (Islam et al, 2017). To analytically connect perceptions and measurement of governance and performance, a 1 to 7-point governance Likert scale type was built (see Appendix A) (Bennett & Dearden, 2014; Hockings et al, 2015; Lockwood, 2010; Lockwood et al, 2010; Slough et al, 2021; UICN, 2019; Van Cuong et al, 2017). The governance scale was validated in in-person two-round workshops with the RBJBE Coordination Committee and local stakeholders between September and December of 2021, taking place the third one on March 4, 2022, in the city of Barahona in the local facilities of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (see Figure 3 for some pictures of the validation process).…”

“…Thus, management is a consequence of applied governance (Bennett & Satterfield, 2018). It is an elusive and challenging topic to be addressed in empirical terms because of the socially conflictive aspects related to the access and use of natural resources by the communities (Hockings et al, 2015; Lockwood et al, 2010; Slough et al, 2021; UICN, 2019).…”

Citizen science in environmental and ecological sciences

“…The approach can function as a vehicle for continual engagement between local communities and scientists, improving the communities' scientific understanding and the feeling of being heard and acknowledged 24 . Moreover, CCS can help to generate transparency, accountability and local ownership of resource management initiatives, empowering community members and prompting locally meaningful actions 66,231 .…”

A Call for Structured Ethics Appendices in Social Science Papers

“…If some participants have stronger claims (for example, if there is local knowledge that the aid would permit some individuals to set and pursue their life goals better -perhaps because they are especially poor and constrained in ways that the aid could relax), then these participants should have priority (11), rather than being randomized out of access. 4 We highlight one further component of the above definition of policy equipoise: "achieving improvements in the relevant outcomes of the study". An RCT could, for example, be focused on testing alternatives for reducing child malnutrition.…”

“…Or divided between the two? If there was a consensus among experts that providing child care grants to the female of a couple improved child welfare more than providing the grant to the man, without other adverse consequences, then randomization to provide grants to men would not have a scarcity justification (and also would violate policy equipoise) 4. The growing selective trials literature provides a promising path forward on capturing local information(12).…”