 Design principles in commons science: A response to “Ostrom, Hardin and the commons” (Araral)Michael Cox, Sergio Villamayor-Tomas and Gwen Arnold Environmental Science & Policy, 2016, vol. 61, issue C, 238-242 Abstract: Within the literature on common-pool resource management, one of the primary methodologies used is the meta-analysis of case studies, due to the difficulties of otherwise producing large-n datasets that span multiple systems. In this paper we respond to a critique of a previous meta-analysis that we have conducted, in which we evaluated Elinor Ostrom’s institutional design principles. Within our response we correct what we perceive to be factual errors contained in this critique, but more importantly we try to use this opportunity to re-evaluate our own work and expand this evaluation to the seminal work of Elinor Ostrom and the research program on common-pool resource management. We find that the original critique highlighted several important points, primarily the challenge of unpacking complex variable relationships and the conflation of diverse outcomes, and we discuss how these are challenges for the larger commons field. We conclude with some comments on how to move forward to confront these challenges. Keywords: Commons; Common-pool resources; Elinor Ostrom; Meta-analysis; Research methods (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:61:y:2016:i:c:p:238-242 DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.020 Access Statistics for this article Environmental Science & Policy is currently edited by M. Beniston More articles in Environmental Science & Policy from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.