Understanding Human-Environment
Interactions through the Institutional Analysis and SES Framework Lens
Catherine M. Tucker & John M. Anderies

•
Over-use and degradation of natural resources threatens the future viability of human societies and mountain systems as we know them
•
Understanding processes and proposing effective policies is difficult: mountains are complex social-ecological systems often with multiple jurisdictions, numerous interested parties, competing uses, inadequately understood ecological relationships, and overlapping (sometimes contradictory) rules and management practices
•
How to move toward sustainable management of mountain systems?
•
Key concepts: Common-pool Resources, Social-ecological systems, Institutions, and Frameworks

Conundrums of Common-Pool
Resources (CPRs)
•
Common-pool resources (CPRs) include renewable natural resources (forests, fisheries…) and certain other resources (the internet)
•
Governing CPRs sustainably poses immense challenges
•
Common-pool resources have two distinguishing characteristics:
–
Exclusion is difficult or costly (it’s hard to keep people out)
–
Subtractability (they are subject to degradation)
•
CPRs are part of complex social-ecological systems (SESs), such as mountain systems

Examples of CPR Problems in
Mountains of the Western USA
•
Urban encroachment on fragile mountain slopes and on delicate watersheds
•
Managing competing interests of ranchers, loggers, hunters, tourists, developers, mining companies, conservationists
•
Allocation of water (ground and surface) among competing humans and natural species
•
Governing “amenity values” – “nature” and “wilderness” vs. comfort & convenience for tourists/immigrants

•
Conventional perspective:
–
“Tragedy of the commons” happen unless higher level governments impose rules
–
The dominant option is for national governments to create public or private ownership
•
Alternative perspective:
–
In certain conditions, human groups are able to selforganize and manage CPRs sustainably in local /regional landscapes, which can have social & ecological advantages
–
Well-documented “design principles” recur in longenduring, community-based regimes to manage local – regional CPRs
•
In any case, CPRs require appropriate institutions for effective management: No single solution for governance!
(Ostrom 1990 Governing the Commons; 2005 Understanding Institutional Diversity )

•
Institutions are RULES that specify the “do’s and don’ts” in a given situation
–
What may, what must, or what must not be done
–
Constraints on acceptable behavior in a specific context
–
Institutions are practiced: Rules-in-use
–
Often occur as decision-making arrangements composed of
“…a constellation of rights, rules, conventions (informal codes and agreements) and contracts, supported by an authority structure” (Edwards & Steins 1998)

CPRs often have multiple interested parties with contrasting views. What happens to CPRs depends on institutional arrangements that exist or develop to address a situation.

•
Metatheoretical language useful for comparing theories
•
Incorporate elements & general relationships known to be important for the problem in question
•
Present a general set of relevant variables
•
Allow for a range of theories and hypotheses
•
Offer a common basis for researchers in different disciplines to organize and integrate knowledge

Major frameworks relevant to research and integration of knowledge across the natural and social sciences in mountain environments, with attention to institutional arrangements:
•
Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework
•
Social Ecological Systems Framework
•
Robustness of Social-Ecological Systems Framework

Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD)
Framework
External Variables
Biophysical
Conditions
Attributes of
Relevant
Human Groups
ACTION
SITUATION
Interactions
Evaluative
Criteria
Rules-in-Use
Outcomes
Adapted from E. Ostrom. Understanding Institutional Diversity 2005:15

Action
Situation
Detail
Ostrom 2005:33

Social Ecological Systems (SES) Framework
Source: Ostrom, E. 2009. A General Framework for Analyzing the Sustainability of Social Ecological
Systems. Science 325: 419-422

Second Tier
Variables in the
SES Framework
> variables known to influence sustainability of social-ecological systems
> not all variables apply to all cases
> researchers assess which variables are relevant for a case
Ostrom, E. 2009
Science 325:419

Robustness Framework
Focus on Institutions & Infrastructure
Anderies, J.M., M.A. Janssen & E. Ostrom 2004 Ecology & Society 9(1):18

Applications of Frameworks to Mountain Systems
•
Assist in formulating and testing questions
•
Provide theoretically relevant sets of variables
–
Flexible, powerful tools
–
Designed to examine complexity
•
Can be applied to specific case studies or comparative analyses
•
Support development of useful models
•
Common frameworks can foster information exchange, data sharing and knowledge accumulation

Modeling: Extending SES to Coupled
Infrastructure Systems (CIS)

Modeling: Extending SES to Coupled
Infrastructure Systems (CIS)

Leading us to:
Overarching Question for the Session Papers
•
What is the relationship between self-organizing regimes for common-pool resources management and complex, multi-scalar, interjurisdictional systems of governance in mountain regions?

Thank you!
Questions and comments are welcome!