1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Environment and Resources
  4. Volume 48, 2023
  5. Article

Annual Review of Environment and Resources

Volume 48, 2023

The Commons

Abstract

Commons—resources used or governed by groups of heterogeneous users through agreed-upon institutional arrangements—are the subject of one of the more successful research programs in the social-environmental sciences. This review assesses research on the commons to accomplish three tasks. First, it surveys the theoretical, substantive, and methods-focused achievements of the field, illustrating how commons research has also influenced natural resource policy making. Second, it examines the changing trajectories of commons research, emphasizing the growing interest of commons researchers in new methods and the application of insights to new social contexts. Third, the review suggests that research on the commons can find continuing relevance by addressing contemporary and future social-environmental challenges. It highlights three directions in particular: () strengthening the focus on issues of power and equity, () applying insights about effective commons governance to collaborative attempts to craft commons in new societal spaces, and () advancing an emerging emphasis on causal analysis and taking advantage of novel streams of large-scale public datasets.

Keyword(s): collective action, common property, common-pool resources, commoning, natural resource policy, resource governance
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112320-113509
2023-11-13
2024-04-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/energy/48/1/annurev-environ-112320-113509.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112320-113509&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Frischmann BM, Marciano A, Ramello GB. 2019. Retrospectives: tragedy of the commons after 50 years. J. Econ. Perspect. 33:211–28
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.
    National Research Council 1995. Science and the Endangered Species Act Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  3. 3.
    National Research Council 2002. The Drama of the Commons Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  4. 4.
    Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  5. 5.
    Rose CM. 2020. Thinking about the commons. Int. J. Commons 14:557–66
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.
    Vaccaro I, Beltran O. 2019. What do we mean by “the Commons?” An examination of conceptual blurring over time. Hum. Ecol. 47:331–40
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.
    Arvidsson A. 2020. Capitalism and the commons. Theory Cult. Soc. 37:3–30
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.
    Bauwens M, Jandrić P 2021. The seeds of the commons: peer-to-peer alternatives for planetary survival and justice. Postdigit. Sci. Educ. 3:575–91
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.
    Slough T, Rubenson D, Levey R, Zhang B. 2021. Adoption of community monitoring improves common pool resource management across contexts. PNAS 118:e2015367118
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.
    Federici S. 2018. Re-Enchanting the World: Feminism and the Politics of the Commons Oakland, CA: PM Press
  11. 11.
    Ostrom E. 2008. The challenge of common-pool resources. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 50:8–21
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.
    Laborda-Pemán M, de Moor T. 2016. History and the commons: a necessary conversation. Int. J. Commons 10:517–28
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.
    Ramakrishnan M, Shrestha A, Soar J. 2021. Innovation centric knowledge commons—a systematic literature review and conceptual model. J. Open Innovat. Technol. Market Complex. 7:35
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.
    Cross MKD 2021. Outer space and the idea of the global commons. Int. Relat. 35:384–402
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.
    Villamayor-Tomas S, García-López G, D'Alisa G 2022. Social movements and commons: in theory and in practice. Ecol. Econ. 194:107328
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.
    Gerber J-D, Lieberherr E, Knoepfel P. 2020. Governing contemporary commons: the Institutional Resource Regime in dialogue with other policy frameworks. Environ. Sci. Policy 112:155–63
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.
    Faure M, Mascini P, Liu J. 2017. Environmental Governance and Common Pool Resources: A Comparison of Fishery and Forestry London: Routledge
  18. 18.
    Tu C, D'Odorico P, Li Z, Suweis S 2023. The emergence of cooperation from shared goals in the governance of common-pool resources. Nat. Sustain. 6:139–47
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.
    Dahlman CJ. 1980. The Open Field System and Beyond: A Property Rights Analysis of an Economic Institution Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  20. 20.
    Lansing JS. 1987. Balinese “water temples” and the management of irrigation. Am. Anthropol. 89:326–41
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.
    Wade R. 1989. Village Republics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  22. 22.
    Behnke R. 2018. Open access and the sovereign commons: a political ecology of pastoral land tenure. Land Use Policy 76:708–18
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.
    Claudet J, Amon DJ, Blasiak R. 2021. Transformational opportunities for an equitable ocean commons. PNAS 118:e2117033118
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.
    Lindsay AR, Sanchirico JN, Gilliland TE, Ambo-Rappe R, Taylor JE et al. 2020. Evaluating sustainable development policies in rural coastal economies. PNAS 117:33170–76
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.
    Diver S, Vaughan M, Baker-Médard M, Lukacs H. 2019. Recognizing “reciprocal relations” to restore community access to land and water. Int. J. Commons 13:400–29
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.
    Ganseforth S. 2023. Blue revitalization or dispossession? Reform of common resource management in Japanese small-scale fisheries. Geogr. J. 189:204–16
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.
    Haller T, Breu T, De Moor T, Rohr C, Znoj H, eds. 2019. The Commons in a Glocal World: Global Connections and Local Responses London: Routledge
  28. 28.
    Cox M, Arnold G, Tomás SV. 2010. A review of design principles for community-based natural resource management. Ecol. Soc. 15:438
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.
    Wall D. 2014. The Commons in History: Culture, Conflict, and Ecology Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  30. 30.
    Baland J-M, Platteau J-P. 1996. Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is There a Role for Rural Communities? Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  31. 31.
    Frey BS. 1970. Models of perfect competition and pure democracy. Kyklos 23:736–55
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.
    Ang YY. 2017. Beyond Weber: conceptualizing an alternative ideal type of bureaucracy in developing contexts. Regul. Gov. 11:282–98
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.
    Sen A 2014. Arrow and the impossibility theorem. Arrow and the Impossibility Theorem E Maskin, A Sen 29–42. New York: Columbia Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.
    Kadirbeyoglu Z, Özertan G. 2015. Power in the governance of common-pool resources: a comparative analysis of irrigation management decentralization in Turkey. Environ. Policy Gov. 25:157–71
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.
    Ojha HR, Ford R, Keenan RJ, Race D, Vega DC et al. 2016. Delocalizing communities: changing forms of community engagement in natural resources governance. World Dev 87:274–90
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.
    Stern P. 2011. Design principles for global commons: natural resources and emerging technologies. Int. J. Commons 5:213–32
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.
    Ostrom E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325:419–22
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.
    Agrawal A. 1999. Greener Pastures: Politics, Markets, and Community Among a Migrant Pastoral People Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
  39. 39.
    Bray DB. 2013. When the state supplies the commons: origins, changes, and design of Mexico's common property regime. J. Lat. Am. Geogr. 12:33–55
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.
    Cumming GS, Epstein G, Anderies JM, Apetrei CI, Baggio J et al. 2020. Advancing understanding of natural resource governance: a post-Ostrom research agenda. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 44:26–34
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.
    Agrawal A. 2014. Studying the commons, governing common-pool resource outcomes: some concluding thoughts. Environ. Sci. Policy 36:86–91
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.
    Ferraro PJ, Agrawal A. 2021. Synthesizing evidence in sustainability science through harmonized experiments: community monitoring in common pool resources. PNAS 118:e2106489118
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.
    Bromley DW. 1992. The commons, common property, and environmental policy. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2:1–17
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.
    Cleaver F. 2017. Development Through Bricolage: Rethinking Institutions for Natural Resource Management London: Routledge
  45. 45.
    Cinner JE, McClanahan TR, MacNeil MA, Graham NAJ, Daw TM et al. 2012. Comanagement of coral reef social-ecological systems. PNAS 109:5219–22
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.
    Gatto A. 2022. Polycentric and resilient perspectives for governing the commons: strategic and law and economics insights for sustainable development. Ambio 51:1921–32
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.
    Hajjar R, Oldekop JA, Cronkleton P, Newton P, Russell AJM, Zhou Z. 2021. A global analysis of the social and environmental outcomes of community forests. Nat. Sustain. 4:216–24
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.
    Johnson CA. 2004. Uncommon ground: the ‘poverty of history’ in common property discourse. Dev. Change 35:3407–34
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.
    Mckay BJ. 2003. The Commons in the New Millennium: Challenges and Adaptation Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  50. 50.
    McCay B, Jentoft S. 2007. Market or community failure? Critical perspectives on common property research. Hum. Organ 57:21–29
     [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.
    Plummer R, Crona B, Armitage DA, Olsson P. 2012. Adaptive comanagement: a systematic review and analysis. Ecol. Soc. 17:311
     [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.
    Berkes F 1989. Common Property Resources. Ecology and Community-Based Sustainable Development London: Belhaven Press
  53. 53.
    Gordon HS. 1954. The economic theory of a common-property resource: the fishery. J. Political Econ. 62:124–42
     [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.
    Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C. 2008. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  55. 55.
    McKean MA 2000. Common property: What is it, what is it good for, and what makes it work?. People and Forests CC Gibson, MA McKean, E Ostrom 27–55. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.
    Poteete AR, Janssen MA, Ostrom E. 2010. Working Together: Collective Action, the Commons, and Multiple Methods in Practice Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  57. 57.
    Anderson TL, Hill PJ. 1975. The evolution of property rights: a study of the American West. J. Law Econ. 18:163–79
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.
    Ostrom E. 2003. How types of goods and property rights jointly affect collective action. J. Theor. Politics 15:239–70
     [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.
    Koniordos SM. 2017. Networks, Trust and Social Capital: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations from Europe London: Routledge
  60. 60.
    Ostrom E. 2005. The complexity of collective action theory Paper presented at Workshop on Analyzing Problems of Polycentric Governance in the Growing EU Humboldt Univ. Berlin: June 16–17
  61. 61.
    Stafford-Smith M, Metternicht G. 2021. Governing drylands as global environmental commons. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 48:115–24
     [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.
    Andersson KP, Cook NJ, Lopez MC, Grillos T. 2018. Experimental evidence on payments for forest commons conservation. Nat. Sustain. 1:128–35
     [Google Scholar]
  63. 63.
    Cárdenas J-C, Ostrom E. 2004. What do people bring into the game? Experiments in the field about cooperation in the commons. Agric. Syst 82:307–26
     [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.
    Dupuits E, Baud M, Boelens R, de Castro F, Hogenboom B. 2020. Scaling up but losing out? Water commons’ dilemmas between transnational movements and grassroots struggles in Latin America. Ecol. Econ 172:106625
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.
    Cox JC, Ostrom E, Walker JM, Castillo AJ. 2009. Trust in private and common property experiments. South. Econ. J. 75:957–75
     [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.
    Singleton S, Taylor M. 1992. Common property, collective action and community. J. Theor. Politics 4:309–24
     [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.
    van Klingeren F. 2020. Playing nice in the sandbox: on the role of heterogeneity, trust and cooperation in common-pool resources. PLOS ONE 15:e0237870
     [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.
    Baylis K, Gong Y, Wang S. 2018. Bridging versus bonding social capital and the management of common pool resources. Land Econ 94:614–31
     [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.
    Sabourin E. 2022. Governance of the commons and social values: a dialogue between Elinor Ostrom's work and the francophone theory of reciprocity. J. Peasant Stud. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2022.2120809
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  70. 70.
    Bodin Ö. 2017. Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science 357:eaan1114
     [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.
    Jagers SC, Harring N, Löfgren A, Sjöstedt M, Alpizar F et al. 2020. On the preconditions for large-scale collective action. Ambio 49:1282–96
     [Google Scholar]
  72. 72.
    Ratner B, Meinzen-Dick R, May C, Haglund E. 2013. Resource conflict, collective action, and resilience: an analytical framework. Int. J. Commons 7:183–208
     [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.
    Keohane RO, Ostrom E. 1994. Local Commons and Global Interdependence Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
  74. 74.
    Doss CR, Meinzen-Dick R. 2015. Collective action within the household: insights from natural resource management. World Dev 74:171–83
     [Google Scholar]
  75. 75.
    Oldekop JA, Sims KRE, Karna BK, Whittingham MJ, Agrawal A. 2019. Reductions in deforestation and poverty from decentralized forest management in Nepal. Nat. Sustain. 2:421–28
     [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.
    Newton P, Oldekop JA, Brodnig G, Karna BK, Agrawal A. 2016. Carbon, biodiversity, and livelihoods in forest commons: synergies, trade-offs, and implications for REDD+. Environ. Res. Lett. 11:044017
     [Google Scholar]
  77. 77.
    Armitage D, Mbatha P, Muhl E-K, Rice W, Sowman M. 2020. Governance principles for community-centered conservation in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2:e160
     [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.
    Sikor T, He J, Lestrelin G. 2017. Property rights regimes and natural resources: a conceptual analysis revisited. World Dev 93:337–49
     [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.
    Quimby B, Levine A 2018. Participation, power, and equity: examining three key social dimensions of fisheries comanagement. Sustainability 10:3324
     [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.
    Ribot JC, Peluso NL. 2003. A theory of access. Rural Sociol 68:153–81
     [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.
    Freeman ER, Civera C, Cortese D, Fiandrino S 2018. Strategising stakeholder empowerment for effective co-management within fishery-based commons. Br. Food J. 120:2631–44
     [Google Scholar]
  82. 82.
    Beier P, Hansen LJ, Helbrecht L, Behar D. 2017. A how-to guide for coproduction of actionable science. Conserv. Lett. 10:288–96
     [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.
    Brandsen T, Honingh M. 2016. Distinguishing different types of coproduction: a conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Adm. Rev. 76:427–35
     [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.
    Morrison TH. 2017. Evolving polycentric governance of the Great Barrier Reef. PNAS 114:E3013–21
     [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.
    Turnhout E, Metze T, Wyborn C, Klenk N, Louder E. 2020. The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 42:15–21
     [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.
    Wright GD, Andersson KP, Gibson CC, Evans TP. 2016. Decentralization can help reduce deforestation when user groups engage with local government. PNAS 113:14958–63
     [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.
    Brondizio ES, Ostrom E, Young OR. 2009. Connectivity and the governance of multilevel social-ecological systems: the role of social capital. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34:253–78
     [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.
    Vogler J. 2012. Global commons revisited. Glob. Policy 3:61–71
     [Google Scholar]
  89. 89.
    Nordhaus W. 1982. How fast should we graze the global commons?. Am. Econ. Rev. 72:2242–46
     [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.
    Buck SJ. 1998. The Global Commons: An Introduction Washington, DC: Island Press
  91. 91.
    Ostrom E. 2012. Nested externalities and polycentric institutions: Must we wait for global solutions to climate change before taking actions at other scales?. Econ. Theory 49:353–69
     [Google Scholar]
  92. 92.
    Li Y, Sewell DK, Saber S, Shank DB, Kashima Y. 2021. The climate commons dilemma: How can humanity solve the commons dilemma for the global climate commons?. Clim. Change 164:4
     [Google Scholar]
  93. 93.
    Castillo D, Saysel AK. 2005. Simulation of common pool resource field experiments: a behavioral model of collective action. Ecol. Econ. 55:420–36
     [Google Scholar]
  94. 94.
    Cárdenas J-C, Janssen MA, Ale M, Bastakoti R, Chalermphol J et al. 2017. Fragility of the provision of local public goods to private and collective risks. PNAS 114:921–25
     [Google Scholar]
  95. 95.
    de Nooy W. 2013. Communication in natural resource management: agreement between and disagreement within stakeholder groups. Ecol. Soc. 18:244
     [Google Scholar]
  96. 96.
    Fischer H, Wijermans N, Schlüter M. 2023. Testing the social function of metacognition for common-pool resource use. Cogn. Sci. 47:e13212
     [Google Scholar]
  97. 97.
    Ullah I, Kim D-Y. 2020. A model of collaborative governance for community-based trophy-hunting programs in developing countries. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 18:145–60
     [Google Scholar]
  98. 98.
    Lopez MC, Villamayor-Tomas S. 2017. Understanding the black box of communication in a common-pool resource field experiment. Environ. Sci. Policy 68:69–79
     [Google Scholar]
  99. 99.
    del Pilar Moreno-Sánchez R, Maldonado JH. 2010. Evaluating the role of co-management in improving governance of marine protected areas: an experimental approach in the Colombian Caribbean. Ecol. Econ. 69:2557–67
     [Google Scholar]
  100. 100.
    Villamor GB, Badmos BK. 2016. Grazing game: a learning tool for adaptive management in response to climate variability in semiarid areas of Ghana. Ecol. Soc. 21:139
     [Google Scholar]
  101. 101.
    Cardenas JC, Rodriguez LA, Johnson N. 2011. Collective action for watershed management: field experiments in Colombia and Kenya. Environ. Dev. Econ. 16:275–303
     [Google Scholar]
  102. 102.
    Dryzek JS, Bächtiger A, Chambers S, Cohen J, Druckman JN et al. 2019. The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science 363:1144–46
     [Google Scholar]
  103. 103.
    Dryzek JS, Bowman Q, Kuyper J, Pickering J, Sass J, Stevenson H. 2019. Deliberative Global Governance. Elements in Earth System Governance Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  104. 104.
    Rodela R. 2012. Advancing the deliberative turn in natural resource management: an analysis of discourses on the use of local resources. J. Environ. Manag. 96:26–34
     [Google Scholar]
  105. 105.
    Romsdahl R, Blue G, Kirilenko A. 2018. Action on climate change requires deliberative framing at local governance level. Clim. Change 149:277–87
     [Google Scholar]
  106. 106.
    Giraudet L-G, Apouey B, Arab H, Baeckelandt S, Bégout P et al. 2022.. “ Co-construction” in deliberative democracy: lessons from the French Citizens’ Convention for Climate. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 9:207
     [Google Scholar]
  107. 107.
    Ayers AL, Kittinger JN, Vaughan MB. 2018. Whose right to manage? Distribution of property rights affects equity and power dynamics in comanagement. Conserv. Ecol. 23:237
     [Google Scholar]
  108. 108.
    Kashwan P. 2016. Integrating power in institutional analysis: a micro-foundation perspective. J. Theor. Politics 28:5–26
     [Google Scholar]
  109. 109.
    Alix-Garcia J. 2007. A spatial analysis of common property deforestation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 53:141–57
     [Google Scholar]
  110. 110.
    Andersson K, Agrawal A. 2011. Inequalities, institutions, and forest commons. Glob. Environ. Change 21:866–75
     [Google Scholar]
  111. 111.
    Vij S, Narain V. 2016. Land, water and power: the demise of common property resources in periurban Gurgaon, India. Land Use Policy 50:59–66
     [Google Scholar]
  112. 112.
    Agrawal A. 1994. I don't need it but you can't have it: politics on the commons. Pastoral Dev. Netw. 36:36–55
     [Google Scholar]
  113. 113.
    Rocheleau D, Thomas-Slayter B, Wangari E, eds. 1996. Feminist Political Ecology: Global Issues and Local Experience London: Routledge
  114. 114.
    Agrawal A. 2005. Environmentality: Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
  115. 115.
    Coleman EA, Mwangi E. 2013. Women's participation in forest management: a cross-country analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 23:193–205
     [Google Scholar]
  116. 116.
    Koralagama D, Gupta J, Pouw N. 2017. Inclusive development from a gender perspective in small scale fisheries. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 24:1–6
     [Google Scholar]
  117. 117.
    Musinguzi L, Natugonza V, Efitre J, Ogutu-Ohwayo R. 2018. The role of gender in improving adaptation to climate change among small-scale fishers. Clim. Dev. 10:566–76
     [Google Scholar]
  118. 118.
    Wangui EE, Smucker TA. 2018. Gendered opportunities and constraints to scaling up: a case study of spontaneous adaptation in a pastoralist community in Mwanga District, Tanzania. Clim. Dev 10:369–76
     [Google Scholar]
  119. 119.
    Venkatasubramanian K, Ramnarain S. 2018. Gender and adaptation to climate change: perspectives from a pastoral community in Gujarat, India. Dev. Change 49:1580–604
     [Google Scholar]
  120. 120.
    Agarwal B. 2009. Gender and forest conservation: the impact of women's participation in community forest governance. Ecol. Econ. 68:2785–99
     [Google Scholar]
  121. 121.
    Leisher C, Temsah G, Booker F, Day M, Samberg L et al. 2016. Does the gender composition of forest and fishery management groups affect resource governance and conservation outcomes? A systematic map. Environ. Evidence 5:6
     [Google Scholar]
  122. 122.
    Revollo-Fernández D, Aguilar-Ibarra A, Micheli F, Sáenz-Arroyo A. 2016. Exploring the role of gender in common-pool resource extraction: evidence from laboratory and field experiments in fisheries. Appl. Econ. Lett. 23:912–20
     [Google Scholar]
  123. 123.
    Masuda YJ, Waterfield G, Castilla C, Kang S, Zhang W. 2022. Does balancing gender composition lead to more prosocial outcomes? Experimental evidence of equality in public goods and extraction games from rural Kenya. World Dev 156:105923
     [Google Scholar]
  124. 124.
    Doss C, Meinzen-Dick R, Quisumbing A, Theis S. 2018. Women in agriculture: four myths. Glob. Food Secur. 16:69–74
     [Google Scholar]
  125. 125.
    Lau JD, Kleiber D, Lawless S, Cohen PJ. 2021. Gender equality in climate policy and practice hindered by assumptions. Nat. Clim. Change 11:186–92
     [Google Scholar]
  126. 126.
    Sent E-M, van Staveren I. 2019. A feminist review of behavioral economic research on gender differences. Fem. Econ. 25:1–35
     [Google Scholar]
  127. 127.
    Lawless S, Cohen PJ, McDougall C, Mangubhai S, Song AM, Morrison TH. 2022. Tinker, tailor or transform: gender equality amidst social-ecological change. Glob. Environ. Change 72:102434
     [Google Scholar]
  128. 128.
    Reeder-Myers L, Braje TJ, Hofman CA, Elliott Smith EA, Garland CJ et al. 2022. Indigenous oyster fisheries persisted for millennia and should inform future management. Nat. Commun. 13:2383
     [Google Scholar]
  129. 129.
    Knowlton N. 2021. Ocean optimism: moving beyond the obituaries in marine conservation. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 13:479–99
     [Google Scholar]
  130. 130.
    Bollig M, Schulte A. 1999. Environmental change and pastoral perceptions: degradation and Indigenous knowledge in two African pastoral communities. Hum. Ecol. 27:493–514
     [Google Scholar]
  131. 131.
    Selemani IS. 2020. Indigenous knowledge and rangelands’ biodiversity conservation in Tanzania: success and failure. Biodivers. Conserv. 29:3863–76
     [Google Scholar]
  132. 132.
    Hemming S, Rigney D, Muller SL, Rigney G, Campbell I. 2017. A new direction for water management? Indigenous nation building as a strategy for river health. Ecol. Soc. 22:213
     [Google Scholar]
  133. 133.
    Trawick P. 2003. Against the privatization of water: an Indigenous model for improving existing laws and successfully governing the commons. World Dev 31:977–96
     [Google Scholar]
  134. 134.
    Estrada A, Garber PA, Gouveia S, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Ascensão F et al. 2022. Global importance of Indigenous Peoples, their lands, and knowledge systems for saving the world's primates from extinction. Sci. Adv. 8:eabn2927
     [Google Scholar]
  135. 135.
    Posey DA. 1985. Indigenous management of tropical forest ecosystems: the case of the Kayapó Indians of the Brazilian Amazon. Agrofor. Syst. 3:139–58
     [Google Scholar]
  136. 136.
    Nolte C, Agrawal A, Silvius KM, Soares-Filho BS. 2013. Governance regime and location influence avoided deforestation success of protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon. PNAS 110:4956–61
     [Google Scholar]
  137. 137.
    Garnett ST, Burgess ND, Fa JE, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Molnár Z et al. 2018. A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nat. Sustain. 1:369–74
     [Google Scholar]
  138. 138.
    Erbaugh JT, Pradham N, Adams J, Oldekop JA, Agrawal A et al. 2020. Global forest restoration and the importance of prioritizing local communities. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4:1472–76
     [Google Scholar]
  139. 139.
    Christensen D, Hartman AC, Samii C. 2021. Citizen monitoring promotes informed and inclusive forest governance in Liberia. PNAS 118:e2015169118
     [Google Scholar]
  140. 140.
    Fisher MR, Moeliona M, Mulyana A, Yuliani EL, Adriadi A et al. 2018. Assessing the new social forestry project in Indonesia: recognition, livelihood and conservation?. Int. For. Rev. 20:346–61
     [Google Scholar]
  141. 141.
    Glasmeier AK, Farrigan T. 2005. Understanding community forestry: a qualitative meta-study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case. Geogr. J. 171:56–69
     [Google Scholar]
  142. 142.
    Sahide MAK, Fisher MR, Erbaugh JT, Intarini D, Dharmiasih W et al. 2020. The boom of social forestry policy and the bust of social forests in Indonesia: developing and applying an access-exclusion framework to assess policy outcomes. Forest Policy Econ 120:102290
     [Google Scholar]
  143. 143.
    Djoudi H, Locatelli B, Vaast C, Asher K, Brockhaus M, Basnett Sijapati B 2016. Beyond dichotomies: gender and intersecting inequalities in climate change studies. Ambio 45:248–62
     [Google Scholar]
  144. 144.
    Lau JD, Scales IR. 2016. Identity, subjectivity and natural resource use: how ethnicity, gender and class intersect to influence mangrove oyster harvesting in the Gambia. Geoforum 69:136–46
     [Google Scholar]
  145. 145.
    Löw C. 2020. Gender and Indigenous concepts of climate protection: a critical revision of REDD+ projects. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 43:91–98
     [Google Scholar]
  146. 146.
    Geertz C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures New York: Basic Books
  147. 147.
    Rojas CA, Cinner J, Lau J, Ruano-Chamorro C, Contreras-Drey FJ, Gelcich S. 2021. An experimental look at trust, bargaining, and public goods in fishing communities. Sci. Rep. 11:20798
     [Google Scholar]
  148. 148.
    Olson M. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  149. 149.
    Alesina A, Gennaioli C, Lovo S. 2019. Public goods and ethnic diversity: evidence from deforestation in Indonesia. Economica 86:32–66
     [Google Scholar]
  150. 150.
    Barnes-Mauthe M, Arita S, Allen SD, Gray SA, Leung P. 2013. The influence of ethnic diversity on social network structure in a common-pool resource system: implications for collaborative management. Ecol. Soc. 18:123
     [Google Scholar]
  151. 151.
    Habyarimana J, Humphreys M, Posner DN, Weinstein JM. 2007. Why does ethnic diversity undermine public goods provision?. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 101:709–25
     [Google Scholar]
  152. 152.
    Warren C, Visser L. 2016. The local turn: an introductory essay revisiting leadership, elite capture and good governance in Indonesian conservation and development programs. Hum. Ecol. 44:277–86
     [Google Scholar]
  153. 153.
    Persha L, Andersson K. 2014. Elite capture risk and mitigation in decentralized forest governance regimes. Glob. Environ. Change 24:265–76
     [Google Scholar]
  154. 154.
    Landemore H. 2013. Deliberation, cognitive diversity, and democratic inclusiveness: an epistemic argument for the random selection of representatives. Synthese 190:1209–31
     [Google Scholar]
  155. 155.
    Baur I, Binder CR. 2013. Adapting to socioeconomic developments by changing rules in the governance of common property pastures in the Swiss Alps. Ecol. Soc. 18:460
     [Google Scholar]
  156. 156.
    Chhatre A, Agrawal A. 2009. Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. PNAS 106:17667–70
     [Google Scholar]
  157. 157.
    Ostrom E, Gardner R. 1993. Coping with asymmetries in the commons: Self-governing irrigation systems can work. J. Econ. Perspect. 7:93–112
     [Google Scholar]
  158. 158.
    Pahl-Wostl C. 2015. Water Governance in the Face of Global Change Cham, Switz: Springer
  159. 159.
    Baggio JA, Barnett AJ, Perez-Ibarra I, Brady U, Ratajczyk E et al. 2016. Explaining success and failure in the commons: the configural nature of Ostrom's institutional design principles. Int. J. Commons 10:417–39
     [Google Scholar]
  160. 160.
    Epstein G, Barnett AJ, Perez-Ibarra I, Brady U, Ratajczyk E et al. 2021. Drivers of compliance monitoring in forest commons. Nat. Sustain. 4:450–56
     [Google Scholar]
  161. 161.
    Neudert R, Salzer A, Allahverdiyeva N, Etzold J, Beckmann V. 2019. Archetypes of common village pasture problems in the South Caucasus: insights from comparative case studies in Georgia and Azerbaijan. Ecol. Soc. 24:35
     [Google Scholar]
  162. 162.
    Berkes F, Ross H. 2013. Community resilience: toward an integrated approach. Soc. Nat. Resour. 26:5–20
     [Google Scholar]
  163. 163.
    Schlager E, Ostrom E. 1992. Property-rights regimes and natural resources: a conceptual analysis. Land Econ 68:249–62
     [Google Scholar]
  164. 164.
    Kelly EC, Charnley S, Pixley JT. 2019. Polycentric systems for wildfire governance in the Western United States. Land Use Policy 89:104214
     [Google Scholar]
  165. 165.
    Sandström A, Söderberg C, Nilsson J. 2020. Adaptive capacity in different multi-level governance models: a comparative analysis of Swedish water and large carnivore management. J. Environ. Manag. 270:110890
     [Google Scholar]
  166. 166.
    McKean M. 1992. Management of traditional common lands (iriaichi) in Japan. Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice, and Policy DW Bronley63–98. San Francisco: Int. Cent. Self-Gov.
     [Google Scholar]
  167. 167.
    Chen J-L, Hsu K, Chuang C-T. 2020. How do fishery resources enhance the development of coastal fishing communities: lessons learned from a community-based sea farming project in Taiwan. Ocean Coast. Manag. 184:105015
     [Google Scholar]
  168. 168.
    Ostrom E, Nagendra H. 2006. Insights on linking forests, trees, and people from the air, on the ground, and in the laboratory. PNAS 103:19224–31
     [Google Scholar]
  169. 169.
    Blackman A, Corral L, Lima ES, Asner GP. 2017. Titling Indigenous communities protects forests in the Peruvian Amazon. PNAS 114:4123–28
     [Google Scholar]
  170. 170.
    Agrawal A, Chhatre A. 2006. Explaining success on the commons: community forest governance in the Indian Himalaya. World Dev 34:149–66
     [Google Scholar]
  171. 171.
    Eisenbarth S, Graham L, Rigterink AS. 2021. Can community monitoring save the commons? Evidence on forest use and displacement. PNAS 118:e2015172118
     [Google Scholar]
  172. 172.
    Blau JP. 2020. Commons research and pastoralism in the context of variability. Nomadic Peoples 24:272–85
     [Google Scholar]
  173. 173.
    Crépin A-S, Lindahl T. 2009. Grazing games: sharing common property resources with complex dynamics. Environ. Resour. Econ. 44:29–46
     [Google Scholar]
  174. 174.
    Robinson LW. 2009. A complex-systems approach to pastoral commons. Hum. Ecol. 37:441–51
     [Google Scholar]
  175. 175.
    Janssen MA, Bousquet F, Cardenas J-C, Castillo D, Worrapimphong K. 2012. Field experiments on irrigation dilemmas. Agric. Syst. 109:65–75
     [Google Scholar]
  176. 176.
    Agrawal A, Benson CS. 2011. Common property theory and resource governance institutions: strengthening explanations of multiple outcomes. Environ. Conserv. 38:199–210
     [Google Scholar]
  177. 177.
    McLain R, Lawry S, Ojanen M 2018. Fisheries’ property regimes and environmental outcomes: a realist synthesis review. World Dev 102:213–27
     [Google Scholar]
  178. 178.
    Cinner JE, Marnane MJ, McClanahan TR. 2005. Conservation and community benefits from traditional coral reef management at Ahus Island, Papua New Guinea. Conserv. Biol. 19:1714–23
     [Google Scholar]
  179. 179.
    Cox M, Villamayor-Tomas S, Arnold G 2016. Design principles in commons science: a response to “Ostrom, Hardin and the commons” (Araral). Environ. Sci. Policy 61:238–42
     [Google Scholar]
  180. 180.
    Ban NC, Davies TE, Aguilera SE, Brooks C, Cox M et al. 2017. Social and ecological effectiveness of large marine protected areas. Glob. Environ. Change 43:82–91
     [Google Scholar]
  181. 181.
    Wilhelm T'A, Sheppard CRC, Sheppard ALS, Gaymer CF, Parks J et al. 2014. Large marine protected areas – advantages and challenges of going big. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 24:24–30
     [Google Scholar]
  182. 182.
    Gruby RL, Gray NJ, Campbell LM, Acton L. 2016. Toward a social science research agenda for large marine protected areas. Conserv. Lett. 9:153–63
     [Google Scholar]
  183. 183.
    McClanahan TR, Marnane MJ, Cinner JE, Kiene WE. 2006. A comparison of marine protected areas and alternative approaches to coral-reef management. Curr. Biol. 16:1408–13
     [Google Scholar]
  184. 184.
    Carter NH, Shrestha BK, Karki JB, Pradhan NMB, Liu J. 2012. Coexistence between wildlife and humans at fine spatial scales. PNAS 109:15360–65
     [Google Scholar]
  185. 185.
    Sjöstedt M, Linell A 2021. Cooperation and coercion: the quest for quasi-voluntary compliance in the governance of African commons. World Dev 139:105333
     [Google Scholar]
  186. 186.
    Rabinovich A, Heath SC, Zhischenko V, Mkilema F, Patrick A et al. 2020. Protecting the commons: predictors of willingness to mitigate communal land degradation among Maasai pastoralists. J. Environ. Psychol. 72:101504
     [Google Scholar]
  187. 187.
    Adhikari S, Kingi T, Ganesh S. 2014. Incentives for community participation in the governance and management of common property resources: the case of community forest management in Nepal. Forest Policy Econ 44:1–9
     [Google Scholar]
  188. 188.
    Andersson K, Benavides JP, León R. 2014. Institutional diversity and local forest governance. Environ. Sci. Policy 36:61–72
     [Google Scholar]
  189. 189.
    Bennett NJ, Kaplan-Hallam M, Augustine G, Ban N, Belhabib D et al. 2018. Coastal and Indigenous community access to marine resources and the ocean: a policy imperative for Canada. Mar. Policy 87:186–93
     [Google Scholar]
  190. 190.
    Rasmussen MB, Lund C. 2018. Reconfiguring frontier spaces: the territorialization of resource control. World Dev 101:388–99
     [Google Scholar]
  191. 191.
    Cleaver F, de Koning J. 2015. Furthering critical institutionalism. Int. J. Commons 9:1–18
     [Google Scholar]
  192. 192.
    Olsson L, Jerneck A, Thoren H, Persson J, O'Byrne D 2015. Why resilience is unappealing to social science: theoretical and empirical investigations of the scientific use of resilience. Sci. Adv. 1:e1400217
     [Google Scholar]
  193. 193.
    Alix-Garcia JM, Sims KRE, Orozco-Olvera VH, Costica LE, Fernández Medina JD, Romo Monroy S 2018. Payments for environmental services supported social capital while increasing land management. PNAS 115:7016–21
     [Google Scholar]
  194. 194.
    Wiener A. 2020. The concept of contestation of norms: an interview SSRN Work. Pap 3523639
  195. 195.
    Rodriguez-Sickert C, Guzmán RA, Cárdenas JC. 2008. Institutions influence preferences: evidence from a common pool resource experiment. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 67:215–27
     [Google Scholar]
  196. 196.
    Ashenafi ZT, Leader-Williams N. 2005. Indigenous common property resource management in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Hum. Ecol. 33:539–63
     [Google Scholar]
  197. 197.
    Beltrán Tapia FJ 2012. Commons, social capital, and the emergence of agricultural cooperatives in early twentieth century Spain. Eur. Rev. Econ. Hist. 16:511–28
     [Google Scholar]
  198. 198.
    Acheson JM. 1988. The Lobster Gangs of Maine Lebanon, NH: Univ. Press New Engl.
  199. 199.
    King G, Keohane RO, Verba S. 2021. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  200. 200.
    Lopez MC, Moran EF. 2016. The legacy of Elinor Ostrom and its relevance to issues of forest conservation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 19:47–56
     [Google Scholar]
  201. 201.
    Ratajczyk E, Brady U, Baggio JA, Barnett AJ, Perez-Ibarra I et al. 2016. Challenges and opportunities in coding the commons: problems, procedures, and potential solutions in large-N comparative case studies. Int. J. Commons 10:440–66
     [Google Scholar]
  202. 202.
    Sanford L. 2023. Democratization, elections, and public goods: the evidence from deforestation. Am. J. Political Sci. 67:3748–63
     [Google Scholar]
  203. 203.
    Snyder HT, Erbaugh JT. 2020. Fishery observers address arctic fishery discards. Environ. Res. Lett. 15:0940c4
     [Google Scholar]
  204. 204.
    Barnett AJ, Partelow S, Frey U, García-Lozano A, del Mar Mancha-Cisneros M et al. 2020. Defining success in the commons: addressing problem orientations, multidimensionality, norms, and tradeoffs. Int. J. Commons 14:366–87
     [Google Scholar]
  205. 205.
    Axelrod R. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation New York: Basic Books
  206. 206.
    Axelrod R, Hamilton WD. 1981. The evolution of cooperation. Science 211:1390–96
     [Google Scholar]
  207. 207.
    Ostrom E, Gardner R, Walker J 1994. Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
  208. 208.
    Meinzen-Dick R, Chaturvedi R, Domenech L, Ghate R, Janssen MA et al. 2016. Games for groundwater governance: field experiments in Andhra Pradesh, India. Ecol. Soc 21:338
     [Google Scholar]
  209. 209.
    Harrison GW, List JA. 2004. Field experiments. J. Econ. Lit. 42:1009–55
     [Google Scholar]
  210. 210.
    Finkbeiner EM, Micheli F, Saenz-Arroyo A, Vazquez-Vera L, Perfan CA, Cárdenas JC. 2018. Local response to global uncertainty: insights from experimental economics in small-scale fisheries. Glob. Environ. Change 48:151–57
     [Google Scholar]
  211. 211.
    Gugissa DA, Ingenbleek PTM, van Trijp HCM. 2021. Market knowledge as a driver of sustainable use of common-pool resources: a lab-in-the-field study among pastoralists in Ethiopia. Ecol. Econ. 185:107039
     [Google Scholar]
  212. 212.
    Ito J, Feuer HN, Kitano S, Komiyama M. 2018. A policy evaluation of the direct payment scheme for collective stewardship of common property resources in Japan. Ecol. Econ. 152:141–51
     [Google Scholar]
  213. 213.
    Lemos MC, Agrawal A. 2006. Environmental governance. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 31:297–325
     [Google Scholar]
  214. 214.
    Agrawal A, Chhatre A, Gerber ER. 2015. Motivational crowding in sustainable development interventions. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 109:470–87
     [Google Scholar]
  215. 215.
    Erbaugh JT. 2022. Impermanence and failure: the legacy of conservation-based payments in Sumatra, Indonesia. Environ. Res. Lett 17:054015
     [Google Scholar]
  216. 216.
    Jayachandran S, de Laat J, Lambin EF, Stanton CY, Audy R, Thomas NE 2017. Cash for carbon: a randomized trial of payments for ecosystem services to reduce deforestation. Science 357:267–73
     [Google Scholar]
  217. 217.
    Muller SM. 2015. Causal interaction and external validity: obstacles to the policy relevance of randomized evaluations. World Bank Econ. Rev. 29:S217–25
     [Google Scholar]
  218. 218.
    Rosenzweig MR, Udry C. 2019. External validity in a stochastic world: evidence from low-income countries. Rev. Econ. Stud. 87:343–81
     [Google Scholar]
  219. 219.
    Cooperman A, McLarty AR, Seim B. 2021. Understanding uptake of community groundwater monitoring in rural Brazil. PNAS 118:e2015174118
     [Google Scholar]
  220. 220.
    Bernedo Del Carpio M, Alpizar F, Ferraro PJ. 2021. Community-based monitoring to facilitate water management by local institutions in Costa Rica. PNAS 118:e2015177118
     [Google Scholar]
  221. 221.
    Buntaine MT, Zhang B, Hunnicutt P. 2021. Citizen monitoring of waterways decreases pollution in China by supporting government action and oversight. PNAS 118:e2015175118
     [Google Scholar]
  222. 222.
    Ostrom E, Burger J, Field CB, Norgaard RB, Policansky D. 1999. Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges. Science 284:278–82
     [Google Scholar]
  223. 223.
    Van Laerhoven F. 2010. Governing community forests and the challenge of solving two-level collective action dilemmas—a large-N perspective. Glob. Environ. Change 20:539–46
     [Google Scholar]
  224. 224.
    Janssen MA, Holahan R, Lee A, Ostrom E. 2010. Lab experiments for the study of social-ecological systems. Science 328:613–17
     [Google Scholar]
  225. 225.
    Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, Alberti M, Folke C et al. 2007. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317:1513–16
     [Google Scholar]
  226. 226.
    Ghorbani A, Ho P, Bravo G. 2021. Institutional form versus function in a common property context: the credibility thesis tested through an agent-based model. Land Use Policy 102:105237
     [Google Scholar]
  227. 227.
    Janssen MA, Ostrom E. 2006. Empirically based, agent-based models. Ecol. Soc. 11:237
     [Google Scholar]
  228. 228.
    Robinson DT, Brown DG, Parker DC, Schreinemachers P, Janssen MA et al. 2007. Comparison of empirical methods for building agent-based models in land use science. J. Land Use Sci. 2:31–55
     [Google Scholar]
  229. 229.
    Rasolofoson RA, Ferraro PJ, Jenkins CN, Jones JPG. 2015. Effectiveness of community forest management at reducing deforestation in Madagascar. Biol. Conserv. 184:271–77
     [Google Scholar]
  230. 230.
    Schleicher J, Eklund J, Barnes MD, Geldmann J, Oldekop JA, Jones JPG 2020. Statistical matching for conservation science. Conserv. Biol. 34:538–49
     [Google Scholar]
  231. 231.
    Takayama T, Nakatani T. 2014. Impact evaluation of measures to conserve and improve land, water and the environment using propensity score matching method: a case study of Hokkaido Prefecture. J. Rural Plann. 33:373–79
     [Google Scholar]
  232. 232.
    Barrett CB. 2021. On design-based empirical research and its interpretation and ethics in sustainability science. PNAS 118:e2023343118
     [Google Scholar]
  233. 233.
    Wiik E, Jones JPG, Pynegar E, Bottazzi P, Asquith N et al. 2020. Mechanisms and impacts of an incentive-based conservation program with evidence from a randomized control trial. Conserv. Biol. 34:1076–88
     [Google Scholar]
  234. 234.
    Loorbach D, Frantzeskaki N, Avelino F. 2017. Sustainability transitions research: transforming science and practice for societal change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 42:599–626
     [Google Scholar]
  235. 235.
    Varvarousis A, Kallis G 2017. Commoning against the crisis. Another Economy Is Possible: Culture and Economy in a Time of Crisis M Castells, S Banet-Weiser, S Hlebik, G Kallis, S Pink et al.128–59. Malden, MA: Polity Press
     [Google Scholar]
  236. 236.
    Ostrom E. 2010. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Glob. Environ. Change 20:550–57
     [Google Scholar]
  237. 237.
    Clement F, Harcourt W, Joshi D, Sato C. 2019. Feminist political ecologies of the commons and commoning. Int. J. Commons 13:1–15
     [Google Scholar]
  238. 238.
    Erbaugh JT. 2019. Responsibilization and social forestry in Indonesia. Forest Policy Econ 109:102019
     [Google Scholar]
  239. 239.
    Mustalahti I, Agrawal A. 2020. Research trends: responsibilization in natural resource governance. Forest Policy Econ 121:102308
     [Google Scholar]
  240. 240.
    Groenfeldt D, Schmidt JJ 2013. Ethics and water governance. Ecol. Soc 18:114
     [Google Scholar]
  241. 241.
    Morrison TH, Adger WN, Brown K, Lemos MC, Huitema D et al. 2019. The black box of power in polycentric environmental governance. Glob. Environ. Change 57:101934
     [Google Scholar]
  242. 242.
    Avelino F, Rotmans J. 2011. A dynamic conceptualization of power for sustainability research. J. Clean. Prod. 19:796–804
     [Google Scholar]
  243. 243.
    Leach M, Reyers B, Bai X, Brondizio E, Cook C et al. 2018. Equity and sustainability in the Anthropocene: a social-ecological systems perspective on their intertwined futures. Glob. Sustain. 1:e13
     [Google Scholar]
  244. 244.
    Pérez-Cirera V, Lovett JC. 2006. Power distribution, the external environment and common property forest governance: a local user groups model. Ecol. Econ. 59:341–52
     [Google Scholar]
  245. 245.
    Suhardiman D, Nicol A, Mapedza E. 2017. Water Governance and Collective Action: Multi-Scale Challenges London: Routledge
  246. 246.
    Turner MD. 2017. Political ecology III: the commons and commoning. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 41:795–802
     [Google Scholar]
  247. 247.
    Bollier D, Helfrich S, eds. 2015. Patterns of Commoning Amherst, MA: Commons Strategy Group/Off the Common Books
  248. 248.
    Esteva G. 2014. Commoning in the new society. Community Dev. J. 49:i144–59
     [Google Scholar]
  249. 249.
    Bresnihan P, Byrne M. 2015. Escape into the city: everyday practices of commoning and the production of urban space in Dublin. Antipode 47:36–54
     [Google Scholar]
  250. 250.
    Birkinbine BJ. 2018. Commons praxis: toward a critical political economy of the digital commons. tripleC Commun. Capital. Critique 16:290–305
     [Google Scholar]
  251. 251.
    Gibson-Graham JK, Cameron J, Healy S. 2016. Commoning as a postcapitalist politics. Releasing the Commons: Rethinking the Futures of the Common A Amin, P Howell 192–212. London: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  252. 252.
    Burke M, Driscoll A, Lobell DB, Ermon S. 2021. Using satellite imagery to understand and promote sustainable development. Science 371:eabe8628
     [Google Scholar]
  253. 253.
    Mirza MU, Xu C, van Bavel B, van Nes EH, Scheffer M. 2021. Global inequality remotely sensed. PNAS 118:e1919913118
     [Google Scholar]
  254. 254.
    Di Cecco GJ, Barve V, Belitz MW, Stucky BJ, Guralnick RP, Hurlbert AH. 2021. Observing the observers: how participants contribute data to iNaturalist and implications for biodiversity science. BioScience 71:1179–88
     [Google Scholar]
  255. 255.
    Jayachandran S, Biradavolu M, Cooper J. 2023. Using machine learning and qualitative interviews to design a five-question survey module for women's agency. World Dev 161:106076
     [Google Scholar]
  256. 256.
    Kern C, Klausch T, Kreuter F. 2019. Tree-based machine learning methods for survey research. Surv. Res. Methods 13:73–93
     [Google Scholar]
  257. 257.
    Abadie A, Diamond A, Hainmueller J. 2015. Comparative politics and the synthetic control method. Am. J. Political Sci. 59:495–510
     [Google Scholar]
  258. 258.
    Callaway B, Sant'Anna PHC 2021. Difference-in-differences with multiple time periods. J. Econometr. 225:200–30
     [Google Scholar]
  259. 259.
    Imbens GW, Rubin DB. 2015. Causal Inference in Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  260. 260.
    Wager S, Athey S. 2018. Estimation and inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using random forests. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 113:1228–42
     [Google Scholar]
  261. 261.
    Leist AK, Klee M, Kim JH, Rehkopf DH, Bordas SPA et al. 2022. Mapping of machine learning approaches for description, prediction, and causal inference in the social and health sciences. Sci. Adv. 8:eabk1942
     [Google Scholar]
  262. 262.
    Sridhar D, Blei DM. 2022. Causal inference from text: a commentary. Sci. Adv. 8:eade6585
     [Google Scholar]
  263. 263.
    Pearl J. 2009. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  264. 264.
    Cukier K, Mayer-Schönberger V. 2014. The rise of big data: how it's changing the way we think about the world. The Best Writing on Mathematics 2014 M Pitici 20–32. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  265. 265.
    Liao C, Brown DG. 2018. Assessments of synergistic outcomes from sustainable intensification of agriculture need to include smallholder livelihoods with food production and ecosystem services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 32:53–59
     [Google Scholar]
  266. 266.
    Sadowski J. 2019. When data is capital: datafication, accumulation, and extraction. Big Data Soc 6:2053951718820549
     [Google Scholar]
  267. 267.
    Verdegem P. 2022. Dismantling AI capitalism: the commons as an alternative to the power concentration of Big Tech. AI Soc https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01437-8
    [Google Scholar]
  268. 268.
    Mansell R. 2013. Employing digital crowdsourced information resources: managing the emerging information commons. Int. J. Commons 7:255–77
     [Google Scholar]
  269. 269.
    Herzog L. 2018. Durkheim on social justice: the argument from “organic solidarity. .” Am. Political Sci. Rev. 112:112–24
     [Google Scholar]
  270. 270.
    Morrow O, Parker B. 2020. Care, commoning and collectivity: from grand domestic revolution to urban transformation. Urban Geogr 41:607–24
     [Google Scholar]
  271. 271.
    Nightingale A. 2019. Commoning for inclusion? Commons, exclusion, property and socio-natural becomings. Int. J. Commons 13:16–35
     [Google Scholar]
  272. 272.
    Partelow S, Manlosa AO. 2023. Commoning the governance: a review of literature and the integration of power. Sustain. Sci. 18:265–83
     [Google Scholar]
  273. 273.
    Castree N. 2021. Framing, deframing and reframing the Anthropocene. Ambio 50:1788–92
     [Google Scholar]
  274. 274.
    McPhearson T, Raymond CM, Gulsrud N, Albert C, Coles N et al. 2021. Radical changes are needed for transformations to a good Anthropocene. NPJ Urban Sustain 1:5
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112320-113509
Loading
The Commons
Annual Review of Environment and Resources 48, 531 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112320-113509
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112320-113509
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112320-113509
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error