Search

The question of how to organize the sustainable exploitation of common-pool resources (CPRs) is an important issue on a global environmental agenda. We argue that the current approach to collective action in CPR management has a number of shortcomings related to (1) the focus on single - use CPRs and (2) the formulation of a priori design principles for successful collective action, which hinders rather than facilitates CPR research and policies. We propose a social constructivist perspective for the study of CPRs, and discuss its implications for research and policy programs. This approach studies the CPR as an entity within a wider external environment, focusing on resource users’ motivations for certain action strategies. The outcome of collective management is considered to be the result of interactions between stakeholders and nonhuman entities, which depends on the way social actors ’socially construct’ their everyday reality. A case study of Irish fishermen, who felt alienated from their fishery as a result of the expansion of commercial finfish farms, and who created common property rights to secure access to the fishery, forms the empirical basis for this study.

In this special issue, Steins and Edwards introduced the notion of nested platforms for resource use negotiation as a tool to facilitate collective action amongst multiple-users in complex common-pool resource management scenarios. Five discussion statements were put forward to aid the debate on multi-use platforms. This paper is a synthesis of the responses to these statements by the other contributors to this special issue. It aims to further stimulate the debate on the management of complex, multiple-use common-pool management scenarios.

One of the key issues to be resolved in the management of natural resources is the extent to which resources can be used and managed in common. With its focus on shared rights, responsibilities and use, common pool resource (CPR) theory has much to offer natural resource policy and planning. However, the policy models and frameworks developed under CPR theory tend to ignore the economic, political, social and cultural context of a resource situation. Such context helps to determine how the actors in a resource situation relate to their social and natural environment and so make resource decisions. Contextual factors are dynamic forces based locally and remotely from resource management regimes and define (i) what is physically, legally, economically and socially feasible in terms of the supply of products and services from a resource; and (ii) what is economically, socially and culturally desirable, by establishing the demand factor. This paper presents a framework of analysis for CPRs, which proposes that there is a contextual factor continuum, forming a series of relationships from local contextual factors to the more remote. The researcher is advised to ‘backsolve’ from resource use outcomes to contextual factors, via the choice sets available to resource users in terms of (i) products and services demanded, (ii) different decision-making rules, and (iii) different action strategies. Such analysis is crucial in informing effective policy review and subsequent changes to institutions.

Collective action processes in complex, multiple-use common-pool resources (CPRs) have only recently become a focus of study. When CPRs evolve into more complex systems, resource use by separate user groups becomes increasingly interdependent. This implies, amongst others, that the institutional framework governing resource use has to be re-negotiated to avoid adverse impacts associated with the increased access of any new stakeholders, such as overexploitation, alienation of traditional users, and inter-user conflicts. The establishment of “platforms for resource use negotiation” is a way of dealing with complex natural resource management problems. Platforms arise when stakeholders perceive the same resource management problem, realize their interdependence in solving it, and come together to agree on action strategies for solving the problem (Roling, 1994). This article sets the scene for a discussion in this Special Issue about the potential of nested platforms for resource use negotiation in facilitating collective action in the management of complex, multiple-use CPRs. The article has five objectives. First, we define “collective action” in the context of this paper. Second, we discuss the importance of collective action in multiple-use CPRs. Third, we introduce the concept of platforms to coordinate collective action by multiple users. Fourth, we address some issues that emerge from evidence in the field regarding the role and potential of nested platforms for managing complex CPRs. Finally, we raise five discussion statements. These will form the basis for the collection of articles in this special issue.

The management of common-pool resources (CPRs) has gained increased attention in the debate about sustainable environmental management. Research on CPR management has mainly concentrated on single-use resources. Since CPRs develop over time to include new extractive and non-extractive users, a multiple-use perspective on their governance is needed. In «multiple-use CPRs» co-ordination and monitoring of the various activities is an integral part of resource management; decision-making processes play a key role in this collective management. This paper develops a heuristic framework for the analysis of decision-making processes in multiple-use CPRs. The framework is based on a case study of three selected harbour uses in the port of Cowes (UK): (1) the oyster fishery; (2) the yachting industry; and (3) cargo shipping, and draws heavily on an analytical framework for single-use CPRs developed by Oakerson. The Oakerson Framework has been re-developed by adapting it to «vertical» and «horizontal» multi-level analysis, including «multiple-levels of decision-making arrangements» and «multiple users», as integral variables. The paper also examines the extent to which user groups can influence the management of a multiple-use CPR as a whole. In cases where such governance remains with an «umbrella authority», the users» ability to influence decisions by the umbrella organization is strongly related to the historical, socio-economic and organizational characteristics of the specific resource use and on the users» strength at the organizational level. While the presence of an umbrella authority may facilitate CPR management, under-representation of specific user groups in decision-making may serve as a catalyst for institutional change for that particular use, in an attempt to find other means of control.

This paper introduces this Special Issue on the Role of Contextual Factors in Common Pool Resource (CPR) research and provides an introduction to CPR theory. It advocates an interdisciplinary, holistic approach to natural resource policy analysis, which assumes the entire resource system, and the wider social, cultural, ecological and economic environment in which it is embedded, as the correct subject for research. The paper recognizes the need to examine how different users of resource systems interrelate and how each relates to their environment. It calls for more diachronic research and for research that extends beyond the geographical boundaries of a particular resource system. Contextual analysis must be focused at different levels. While contextual factors vary from resource situation to resource situation, generic categories of factors may be useful. The uncertainty of contextual influence demands that a balance is struck between the need for flexible management regimes, which allow users to adapt to changing contexts, and the need for stable, long-term resource management planning. The ability to incorporate the knowledge systems of the user groups into policy and management frameworks may determine the extent to which they are able to adapt to change in time to prevent resource deterioration. In doing so, the researcher should be aware that both the research and researcher are contextual factors that may become internalized. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.