All posts by Garry Peterson

Prof. of Environmental science at Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University in Sweden.

Revisiting Ostrom’s Design principles for community-based Natural Resource Management

In her talk at Resilience 2011, Elinor Ostrom recommended a recent paper by her colleagues that reviews 91 studies that empirically evaluated her design principles for for resilient institutions for the management of common pool resources.

Cox, M., G. Arnold, and S. Villamayor Tomás. 2010. A review of design principles for community-based natural resource management. Ecology and Society 15(4): 38. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art38/

The authors found that her principals were well supported. They provide a reformulation of the design principals, by dividing each of the components 1,2, and 4 into two parts and keeping the remaining principals as they are.  Their revised principles are below:

Principle Description
1A User boundaries: Clear boundaries between legitimate users and nonusers must be clearly defined.
1B Resource boundaries: Clear boundaries are present that define a resource system and separate it from the larger biophysical environment.
2A Congruence with local conditions: Appropriation and provision rules are congruent with local social and environmental conditions.
2B Appropriation and provision: The benefits obtained by users from a common-pool resource (CPR), as determined by appropriation rules, are proportional to the amount of inputs required in the form of labor, material, or money, as determined by provision rules.
3 Collective-choice arrangements: Most individuals affected by the operational rules can participate in modifying the operational rules.
4A Monitoring users: Monitors who are accountable to the users monitor the appropriation and provision levels of the users.
4B Monitoring the resource: Monitors who are accountable to the users monitor the condition of the resource.
5 Graduated sanctions: Appropriators who violate operational rules are likely to be assessed graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and the context of the offense) by other appropriators, by officials accountable to the appropriators, or by both.
6 Conflict-resolution mechanisms: Appropriators and their officials have rapid access to low-cost local arenas to resolve conflicts among appropriators or between appropriators and officials.
7 Minimal recognition of rights to organize: The rights of appropriators to devise their own institutions are not challenged by external governmental authorities.
8 Nested enterprises: Appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises.

Michael Cox et al conclude:

a probabilistic, rather than deterministic, interpretation of the design principles is warranted. Likewise, we remain uncertain as to whether the principles may apply to systems at a variety of scales. Ultimately, however, the design principles are robust to empirical testing in our analysis of 91 studies. Thus, we conclude that they are a sound basis for future research conducted to further disentangle the interactive effects of relevant variables, both within and across multiple environmental and social scales.

Aside from our empirical analysis, we dealt with an important theoretical debate regarding the principles: Are they inherently part of a blueprint approach to CPR management or can they be combined with a more diagnostic approach? We think the latter is the case, and this points us in a specific direction for future research. Each of the aforementioned empirical complications could likely be addressed by approaching CPR management from a diagnostic perspective. This is a process that helps to sort out what is important in a CPR setting, when, and why. We hope to see and plan to participate in future work to develop this approach further.

Cox, M., G. Arnold, and S. Villamayor Tomás (2010). A review of design principles for community-based natural resource management Ecology and Society, 15 (4)

UBC looking for Asst. or Assoc. Professor in Indigenous Forestry

Sarah Gergel writes to tell me that the excellent University of British Columbia, Faculty of Forestry is look for a Tenured or Tenure-Track Assistant or Associate Professor in Indigenous Forestry.  The job ad is not yet up online, but will be soon.

The Department of Forest Resources Management in the Faculty of Forestry at the University of British Columbia seeks a tenured or tenure-track Assistant or Associate Professor in indigenous forestry. Candidates must hold a Ph.D. or equivalent degree in a relevant discipline, including forestry or related environmental or social sciences. Research interests could include: Aboriginal governance and policy, adaptive collaborative management, economic development of indigenous communities, sustainable communities, or traditional ecological knowledge. The candidate should have demonstrated experience in collaborating with indigenous communities and the development of university-level courses or teaching programs in Aboriginal or community forestry.

Continue reading

Steve Carpenter wins Stockholm Water Prize

Big congratulations to my former post-doc advisor Steve Carpenter on winning the 2011  Stockholm Water Prize.  It is well deserved as Steve has done a huge amount of really innovative work on ecosystem dynamics, ecological economics, large scale ecosystem experiments,  and environmental management.

The prize citation writes:

Professor Carpenter’s groundbreaking research has shown how lake ecosystems are affected by the surrounding landscape and by human activities. His findings have formed the basis for concrete solutions on how to manage lakes.

Professor Carpenter, 59, is recognised as one of the world’s most influential environmental scientists in the field of ecology. By combining theoretical models and large-scale lake experiments he has reframed our understanding of freshwater environments and how lake ecosystems are impacted by humans and the surrounding landscape.

The Stockholm Water Prize Nominating Committee emphasises the importance of Professor Carpenter’s contributions in helping us understand how we affect lakes through nutrient loading, fishing, and introduction of exotic species.

“Professor Carpenter has shown outstanding leadership in setting the ecological research agenda, integrating it into a socio-ecological context, and in providing guidance for the management of aquatic resources,” noted the Stockholm Water Prize Nominating Committee.

The Stockholm Water Prize is a global award founded in 1991 and presented annually by the Stockholm International Water Institute to an individual, organisation or institution for outstanding water-related activities. The Stockholm Water Prize Laureate receives USD 150,000 and a crystal sculpture specially designed and created by Orrefors.

H.M. King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, who is the patron of the Prize, will formally present Professor Carpenter with the 2011 Stockholm Water Prize at a Royal Award Ceremony in Stockholm City Hall on August 25 during the 2011 World Water Week in Stockholm.

SIWI, who gives the water prize have also posted an interview with Steve about his work on trophic cascades and resilience:

Massive cost of Japan’s disaster

The earthquake, tsunami, nuclear disaster in Japan is likely to be the most expensive disaster since disaster estimates began in 1965.  Over recent decades disasters have generally had a decreasing death toll, but an increasing economic cost.  The Sendai earthquake follows these trends.  The Economist reports:

Provisional estimates released today by the World Bank put the economic damage resulting from the disaster at as much as $235 billion, around 4% of GDP. That figure would make this disaster the costliest since comparable records began in 1965. The Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004, which caused some 250,000 deaths, does not feature on this chart. Economic losses there amounted to only $14 billion in today’s prices, partly because of low property and land values in the affected areas.

via

Japan’s cascading disaster

It is too early for a resilience analysis of Japan’s cascading disaster, but here are some links.  First on the fast variables, and then on the slow.

1) International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is posting their continuously updated report on situation at Update on the Japan Earthquake web page.

2) Christian Science Monitor Reports: Lax oversight, ‘greed’ preceded Japan nuclear crisis

3) In his New Yorker blog, Evan Osnos reflects on China’s Nuclear Binge.  Rapid building combined with poor monitoring and corruption is not a good recipe for nuclear safety.  He writes about the a recent corruption case of Kang Rixin:

His was a $260 million corruption case connected to rigged bids in the construction of nuclear power plants. Keith Bradsher, in the Times, wrote, “While none of Mr. Kang’s decisions publicly documented would have created hazardous conditions at nuclear plants, the case is a worrisome sign that nuclear executives in China may not always put safety first in their decision-making.”

4)  Miller-Mcune writes Nuclear Disasters: Do Plans Trump Actions? about a new report from Union of Concerned Scientists which says that U.S. nuclear regulators are way too complacent about the possibility of a catastrophe.

5) On the STEPS centre‘s blog  Andy Stirling writes about Japan’s neglected nuclear lessons:

So the most serious lesson already emerging outside Japan is about the pressures, driven by established nuclear commitments, to obscure information; compromise objectivity; and suppress political choice about energy futures. We may live in hope that there will come a time when more comprehensive and dispassionate attention will be given to the full global potential of viable alternatives to nuclear power. Many of these are manifestly more resilient in the face of technical mishap, natural disaster or deliberate acts of violence. Distributed renewable energy infrastructures, for instance, offer a way to avoid huge regulation-enforced losses of electricity-generating capacity when a series of similar plants have to be closed due to safety failings in any one. They minimise the compounding economic impacts of the knock-on self-destruction of massively expensive capital equipment, some time after an initial shock. They do not threaten to exacerbate natural disaster with forced precautionary evacuations of large tracts of urban industrial areas. And there is no scenario at all – unlikely or otherwise – under which they can render significant areas of land effectively uninhabitable for decades, let alone commit large populations to the potential long-term (and untraceable) harm of elevated low doses of ionising radiation.

Universities for Sustainability Science: need for a new vision

At Resilience 2011, William Clark recommends the 2002 inaugural address of Michael Crow as President of Arizona State University (ASU) as a good example about how to think about what a university needs to be to embrace the challenge of sustainability scienceA New American University, the New Gold Standard

A. Introduction

B. Why the Existing Models are Not Appropriate for Arizona in the Twenty-first Century

  1. The Existing Models: The Gold Standard
  2. The Cultural Landscape of Arizona: A Frontier Heritage
  3. Sociological Determinants: Changing Demographics
  4. Economic Exigencies: Embracing Opportunity
  5. Environmental Limitations: Sustainability and the Future of Arizona

C. The New Gold Standard: Design Imperatives of a New American University

  1. ASU Must Embrace its Cultural, Socioeconomic, and Physical Setting
  2. ASU Must Become a Force, and Not Only a Place
  3. ASU as Entrepreneur
  4. Pasteur’s Principle
  5. A Focus on the Individual
  6. Intellectual Fusion
  7. Social Embeddedness
  8. Global Engagement

D. Conclusion: The New Gold Standard

Readings in Sustainability Science

At Resilience 2011, William Clark in a good talk on the success and challenges of sustainability science mentioned that Robert Kates has created a Reader on Sustainability Science and Technology.

The reader is publicly available on the Center for International Development‘s website at Harvard University.  The reader is aimed at for advanced undergraduate and beginning graduate students of sustainability science.  The reader contains links to almost a 100 articles and book chapters organized around three major domains of sustainability science.

Part 1: an overview of sustainable development;

Part 2: the emerging science and technology of sustainability; and

Part 3: the innovative solutions and grand challenges of moving this knowledge into action

Resilience 2011 on twitter

A number of people are providing their brief reflections on twitter about what is going on at Resilience 2011.

My colleagues from the Stockholm Resilience Centre are represented by Albert Norström and Victor Galaz.

David Ing, people from the Transition town movement, and others are also twittering from the meeting.

[update: Juan Carlos Rocha from the SRC is also reporting from the conference]

Resilience 2011 @ ASU

Resilience 2011, the 2nd International resilience conference, has started  at Arizona State University.  It runs from March 11-16th, and has over 700 attendees and a diverse set of talks and activities.

Resilience Science writers Buzz Holling, Henrik Ernston, Victor Galaz, Marco Janssen, Allyson Quinlan and I are here presenting our work, and providing some reports on the conference.

And the conference has a twitter hashtag #resilience2011, and many people seem to be reporting from the conference.