Resource Geography
Carl Anderson
Nate Shaub
Nathan Eidem
Debbie Reusser
Garrett Hardin
(April 21, 1915 – September 14, 2003)
• Ecologist and Microbiologist
• Authored
Photo copyright Vic Cox
– 27 books
– Over 350 articles
• Said true but unpopular things
• Tragedy of the Commons, 1968
“Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each
pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the
freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin
to all.”
The Tragedy of the Commons
• Resource limitations posed by the “population problem”
• No technological solution
• Adam Smith  decisions reached individually will be best for
society
• if this is not true: “reexamine our individual freedoms”
• The Tragedy of the Commons: a common pasture
• +1 for each additional cow
• fraction of –1 for effects of overgrazing
• the “rational man” decides on “sensible course”
• can be extended to pollution and other “commons” situations
(fisheries, etc.)
The Tragedy of the Commons
• Possible solutions
• Privatization  only care about one’s own property; taxation
• Allocate right to enter commons: basis of wealth, auction,
merit, lottery?
• Appeal to conscience  “self-eliminating”
OR
• “Mutual Coercion Mutually Agreed Upon”
• Legislate the “freedom to breed”
•As with taxes, people support so as not to favor the
conscienceless
“The commons, if justifiable at all is justifiable
only under conditions of low-population density”
Questions
• Since,
as with taxes, the
“conscienceless” still find ways around
the system, would Hardin’s proposal
result in a form of eugenics?
•What do you think of Hardin’s other
“options” concerning limiting access to
the commons (i.e. lottery, auction, etc.)?
•The author mentions visual and audio
pollution as a case of the tragedy of the
commons. Is this appropriate?
Revisiting the Commons:
Local Lessons, Global
Challenges
Elinor Ostrom, et al.
Science Vol. 284, 1999
Where did Hardin Go Wrong?
• Users trapped & can’t better
situation
• Solutions must come from
external authorities
1. Socialism
2. Privatization
China, Mongolia, Russia
• China
– State-owned ag collectives with permanent
settlements & privatization (1/3 degraded)
• Mongolia
– Local pastoralist institutions; herd rotation
between seasonal pastures (1/10 degraded)
• Russia
– State-owned ag collectives with permanent
settlements (3/4 degraded)
• Socialism & Privatization have resulted
in greater grassland degradation
Local Lessons
• Groups who know each other more likely
cooperate
• Technology allows for better
communication and coordination of
activities
• Rules are essential; Must be monitored and
enforced
– Knowledge of resource boundaries & availability
– Limited access & governed inclusion
– Increased complexity → Difficult to develop rules
• Higher levels of government can hinder or
help the effectiveness of local institutions
Global Challenges
• Resource issues more complex
– More players, more interaction,
diverse cultures
– North-South differences
– Accelerating rates of change
– Smaller room for error
Looking to the Future
• Nested levels of governance
• Technological improvements
• Education and Communication
Questions
• Almost forty years later . . . Do we
have better answers now?
• Are our resources an inheritance
from the past that we should feel
obligated to pass on to our
descendants?
Post-Wildfire Logging Hinders
Regeneration and Increases Fire Risk
Donato, et al.
Science Vol. 311, 2006
• Biscuit Fire
Two Views:
• Sessions, et al (2004)–
– Salvage logging and replanting fits
best with habitat requirements of
Northwest Forest Plan
• Donato, et al
– Salvage logging is detrimental to
long-term forest health
• Biscuit Fire
Results:
• Sessions, et al
– 210 plots analyzed using Landsat data and
Grass software
• Donato, et al
– 9 burn-only sites compared to 9 burnlogged sites
• Question: What methodology seems to
be most useful to managers?
Conclusions
• Sessions
– “If the goal is to hasten restoration of
complex mature conifer-dominated forests
on the Biscuit Fire landscape, careful
timber salvage can be useful.”
• Donato
– “Postfire logging, by removing naturally
seeded conifers and increasing surface fuel
loads, can be counterproductive to the
goals of forest regeneration and fuel
reduction.
Supporting Online Material (Before)
Abstract
Legislation currently pending in U.S. Congress,
HR 4200, would expedite post fire logging
projects, citing reforestation and fuel reduction
among its goals. To help inform the dialogue,
we present data from a study of early conifer
regeneration and fuel loads following the 2002
Biscuit Fire, Oregon, USA, with and without
post fire logging. Natural conifer regeneration
was abundant after high-severity fire. Post fire
logging reduced median regeneration density
by 71% and significantly increased downed
woody fuel loads and thus short-term fire risk.
Post fire logging can be counterproductive to
stated goals of ecosystem restoration.
Supporting Online Material (After)
Abstract
We present data from a study of early
conifer regeneration and fuel loads following
the 2002 Biscuit Fire, Oregon, USA, with and
without post fire logging. Natural conifer
regeneration was abundant after highseverity fire. Post fire logging reduced
median regeneration density by 71%,
significantly increased downed woody fuel
loads, and thus short-term fire risk. Post fire
logging can be counterproductive to the
goals of forest regeneration and fuel
reduction.
Questions
• What should be the interaction between
government and science, and what would the
implications be for government resource
managers?
• In the case of managing timber resources on
public lands, what are the possibilities for
“institutional diversity”?
• Would the whole controversy have been
avoided if the government had firm guidelines
implemented for salvage logging in the first
place?