Gari, S., Newton, A., Icely, J. and Delgado-Serrano, M.M.
SUSTAINABILITY 9(7):1287. DOI: 10.3390/su9071287
Resumen: There are a number of gaps in reviews relating Ostrom’s design principles (DPs) to common-pool resource (CPR) institutions. These include the geographical distribution of CPRs,
the performance of young CPRs relative to the DPs, and the relationship between robustness and success in adherence to the DPs. to This research aims to: (i) explicitly analyze the geographical distribution of the case studies that have used the DPs, (ii) explore the relationship between the DPs and young CPR institutions, (iii) examine the relationship between robustness and success of CPR institutions based on the DPs, and (iv) identify additional factors contributing to the performance of CPR institutions. In relation to Ostrom’s DPs, the CPRs under review involve management only by the community, co-management between the community and the state, and co-management between the community and non-governmental organizations. The results show that: DPs have been applied in all the inhabited continents; the expression of the DPs is affected by the geographical settings; the DPs do not conclusively diagnose the functionality of young and viable CPR institutions, whereas they may do so for either the short-lived (failed) or the long-lasting institutions; the relationship between robustness and success appears weak; and there are additional factors that contribute to the outcomes of CPR management.
Delgado-Serrano M.M. and Ramos, P.
International Journal of the Commons 9(2):808-830. http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.567
Ostrom’s framework to analyse the sustainability of social-ecological systems has attracted great interest in the last years. It was not conceived to characterise systems, but its nature and structure make it very appealing to be used with this objective. However, its use to characterise three social-ecological systems where common-pool resource management is central created some methodological struggles and difficulties for comparing outcomes. This paper aims to present some adaptations developed for improving the framework’s comprehensiveness and practical applicability at local level, such as a transdisciplinary description of the second-level variables, the definition of a set of third-level variables to facilitate and enrich the descriptions and additional guidelines for gathering the information and planning data searching processes at local level. The whole process of adapting and applying the framework was the result of collaboration among scientists, and local researchers and stakeholders. The adapted framework permitted a comprehensive and comparable characterisation of the socialecological systems analysed and facilitated its use by the local communities.