The Role of Common-Pool Resources’ Institutional Robustness in a Collective Action Dilemma under Environmental Variations

Abstract

Extreme environmental variations, as a phenomenon deriving from climate change, led to an exacerbated uncertainty on water availability and increased the likelihood of conflicts regarding water-dependent activities such as agriculture. In this paper, we investigate the role of conflict resolution mechanisms—one of Ostrom’s acclaimed Design Principles—when social-ecological systems are exposed to physical external disturbances. The theoretical propositions predict that social-ecological systems with conflict-resolution mechanisms will perform better than those without them. We tested this proposition through a framed field experiment that mimicked an irrigation system. This asymmetric setting exposed farmers to two (2) dilemmas: (i) how much to invest in the communal irrigation system’s maintenance and (ii) how much water to extract. The setting added a layer of complexity: water availability depended not only on the investment but also on the environmental variability. Our findings confirmed the theoretical proposition: groups with stronger ‘institutional robustness’ can cope with environmental variations better than those with weaker robustness. However, we also found that some groups, despite lacking conflict-resolution mechanisms, were also able to address environmental variations. We explored potential explanatory variables to these unexpected results. We found that subjects’ and groups’ attributes might address uncertainty and avert conflict. Thus, social-ecological systems’ capacity to respond to external disturbances, such as environmental variations, might not only be a question of Design Principles. Instead, it might also be strongly related to group members’ attributes and group dynamics. Our results pave the way for further research, hinting that some groups might be better equipped for mitigation measures, while others might be better equipped for adaptation measures.

Considering Ecosystem Services in Food System Resilience

“…This paper extends the previous work by Carpenter et al, [ 137 ], Dipierri and Zikos [ 138 ], and Ostrom [ 139 , 140 ] by explicitly linking the role of ecosystem services to food security and ultimately the nutritional status of individuals and communities. Historically, the MEA and other works have focused on the how they relate to well-being without specific reference to food security [ 137 ].…”

“…We have extended their work to provide examples of how natural resources can also support smallholders without human interference, which allows ecosystem services support the adaptation and mitigation to climate change-induced natural hazards. This does not negate the fact that policies and the design principles articulated by Ostrom [ 140 ] do not ultimately impact the relationship between ecosystem services, food systems, and food security [ 138 ]. Other researchers have long investigated how and why managing ecosystem services may significantly contribute to resilient and sustainable food systems to the impacts of natural hazards.…”

Water Conflicts in Chile: Have We Learned Anything from Colonial Times?

“…So far, researchers indicate that WUAs have been very much aware of performing these administrative functions and that they have the normative and administrative tools for good management of them, despite the fact that many still operate in precarious conditions [15,52,63]. Here, WUA members, together with the group dynamic in place, have become a crucial element in their capacity to respond to external disturbances, such as environmental variations, as a study carried out [64] determined. In theory, these associations should involve all users of the watershed, including agricultural, mining, urban, hydroelectric, tourism, environmental, and industrial users, as well as anyone else who uses those waters.…”

Climate Change, Adaptation Planning and Institutional Integration: A Literature Review and Framework

“…Resource scarcity (and competition) resulting from unsustainable management practices carries equity implications, both across extant socioeconomic classes and for future generations who may be disadvantaged or disenfranchised by prior resource usage [59][60][61]. Because planning is a core component of development, SD is frequently invoked as a concept to guide both the means and ends of planning-for-sustainability, a topic of increasing importance in an era of rising environmental concern, uncertainty, and flux [62][63][64].…”

“…Dovers [267] points out that even constructing an understanding of the limits to adaptation is fraught in part because of the institutional dimension, whose sheer complexity grows with the scale considered [268]. With climate change altering resource regimes and shaping the public good(s) of citizens linked through institutional behavior and (ideally) aligned through adaptation planning practices, questions about how common-pool resources and common-pool institutions can or should shape planning's role in allocating entitlements and obligations emerge [60,263,[269][270][271]. This, in turn (and in ways beyond the scope of this article), ensnares any number of private sector considerations and the need to, among other things, understand how planning and institutions are positioned to address or adapt to markets relevant in adaptation [66,143].…”