1. Clearly defined boundaries Individuals or households who have rights to withdraw resource units from the CPR [common pool resource] must be clearly defined, as must the boundaries of the CPR itself.
-
-
Show this thread
-
2. Congruence between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions Appropriation rules restricting time, place, technology, and/or quantity of resource units are related to local conditions and to provision rules requiring labor, material, and/or money.
Show this thread -
3. Collective-choice arrangements Most individuals affected by the operational rules can participate in modifying the operational rules.
Show this thread -
4. Monitoring Monitors, who actively audit CPR conditions and appropriator behavior, are accountable to the appropriators or are the appropriators.
Show this thread -
5. Graduated sanctions Appropriators who violate operational rules are likely to be assessed graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and context of the offense) by other appropriators, by officials accountable to these appropriators, or by both.
Show this thread -
6. Conflict-resolution mechanisms Appropriators and their officials have rapid access to low-cost local arenas to resolve conflicts among appropriators or between appropriators and officials.
Show this thread -
7. Minimal recognition of rights to organize The rights of appropriators to devise their own institutions are not challenged by external governmental authorities.
Show this thread -
BONUS: For CPRs that are parts of larger systems: 8. Nested enterprises Appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises.
Show this thread -
None of these require privatization or state control Rules are usually defined according to local needs of the appropriators of the resource themselves
Show this thread -
That said, the threat of state sanctions is a good way to get local resource users to cooperate among themselves
Show this thread -
California averted its water crisis in the 1920s-1950s because everyone was scared that if they didn't work together, some judge would decide the water allocation for them
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.