Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-kbvt8 Total loading time: 0.224 Render date: 2021-10-24T13:31:45.253Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

A multi-method approach to study robustness of social–ecological systems: the case of small-scale irrigation systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2013

MARCO A. JANSSEN*
Affiliation:
Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
JOHN M. ANDERIES*
Affiliation:
Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

Abstract:

Elinor Ostrom was a leader in using multiple methods to perform institutional analysis. In this paper, we discuss how a multi-method approach she pioneered may be used to study the robustness of social–ecological systems. We synthesize lessons learned from a series of studies on small-scale irrigation systems in which we use case-study analysis, experimental methods in laboratory and field settings, and mathematical models. The accumulated insights show the importance of creating institutional arrangements that fit the human ecology within the biophysical constraints of the system. The examples of work based on multiple methods approaches presented here highlight several lessons. For example, experimental work helps us better understand the details of how the ability to maintain trust relationships, low levels of inequality, and low transaction costs of coordination are critical for success. Likewise, the integration of case-study analysis and modeling helps us better understand how systems that can leverage biophysical characteristics to help address challenges of monitoring, sanctioning, and coordination may be able to increase their chances of success.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderies, J. M. (2006), ‘Robustness, institutions, and large-scale change in social-ecological systems: The Hohokam of the Phoenix basin’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 2 (2): 133155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A., Lee, A., and Wasserman, H. (in press), ‘Environmental variability and collective action: Experimental insights from an irrigation game’, Ecological Economics.Google Scholar
Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A., and Ostrom, E. (2004), ‘A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective’, Ecology and Society, 9 (1): 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrew, N. L., Béné, C., Hall, S. J., Allison, E. H., Heck, S., and Ratner, B. D. (2007), ‘Diagnosis and management of small-scale fisheries in developing countries’, Fish and Fisheries, 8 (3): 227240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Araral, E. (2009), ‘What explains collective action in the commons? Theory and evidence from the Philippines’, World Development, 37 (3): 687697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Araral, E. (2013), ‘Does geography matter to institutional choice? A comparative study of ancient commons’, Geoforum, 44: 224231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, R. and Molle, F. (2004), Evolution of irrigation in South and Southeast Asia. Technical report, IWMI. Comprehensive Assessment Research, No. 5.Google Scholar
Bastakoti, R. C. and Shivakoti, G. P. (2012), ‘Rules and collective action: An institutional analysis of the performance of irrigation systems in Nepal’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 8 (2): 225246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodin, Ö., Crona, B., and Ernstson, H. (2006), ‘Social networks in natural resource management: What is there to learn from a structural perspective’, Ecology and Society, 11 (2): r2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, J. M. and Doyle, J. (2002), ‘Complexity and robustness’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 99 (suppl. 1): 25382545.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cifdaloz, O., Regmi, A., Anderies, J. M., and Rodriguez, A. A. (2010), ‘Robustness, vulnerability, and adaptive capacity in small-scale social-ecological systems: The Pumpa irrigation system in Nepal’, Ecology and Society, 15 (3): 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinner, J., Marnane, M. J., McClanahan, T. R., and Almany, G. R. (2006), ‘Periodic closures as adaptive coral reef management in the Indo-Pacific’, Ecology and Society, 11 (1): 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, M. (2012), ‘Diagnosing institutional fit: A formal perspective’, Ecology and Society, 17 (4): 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, M., Arnold, G., and Villamayor Tomás, S. (2010), ‘A review of design principles for community-based natural resource management’, Ecology and Society, 15 (4): 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csete, M. E. and Doyle, J. C. (2002), ‘Reverse engineering of biological complexity’, Science, 295: 16641669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duit, A. and Galaz, V. (2008), ‘Governance and complexity – emerging issues for governance theory’, Governance, 21 (3): 311335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekstrom, J. A. and Young, O. R. (2009), ‘Evaluating functional fit between a set of institutions and an ecosystem’, Ecology and Society, 14 (2): 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folke, C. (2006), ‘Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social – ecological systems analyses’, Global Environmental Change, 16 (3): 253267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., and Norberg, J. (2005), ‘Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems’, Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 30: 441473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folke, C., , L. Pritchard Jr., Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Svedin, U. (2007), ‘The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions: Ten years later’, Ecology and Society, 12 (1): 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallopın, G. C. (2006), ‘Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity’, Global Environmental Change, 16 (3): 293303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, H. S. (1954), ‘The economic theory of a common-property resource: The fishery’, Journal of Political Economy, 62 (2): 124142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, G. (1968), ‘The tragedy of the commons’, Science, 162: 12431248.Google ScholarPubMed
Holling, C. S. (1973), ‘Resilience and stability of ecological systems’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4: 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, R. C. (1988), ‘Size and structure of authority in canal irrigation systems’, Journal of Anthropological Research, 44 (4): 335355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2007), Climate change: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Technical report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Google Scholar
Janssen, M. A., Bousquet, F., Cardenas, J. C., Castillo, D., and Worrapimphong, K. (2012), ‘Field experiments of irrigation dilemmas’, Agricultural Systems, 109: 6575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiser, L. and Ostrom, E. (1982), ‘The three worlds of action: A meta-theoretical synthesis of institutional approaches’, in Ostrom, E. (ed.), Strategies of Political Inquiry, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 179222.Google Scholar
Lam, W. F. (1998), Governing Irrigation Systems in Nepal: Institutions, Infrastructure, and Collective Action, Oakland, CA: ICS Press.Google Scholar
Lansing, J. S. (1991), Priests and Programmers: Technologies of Power in the Engineered Landscape of Bali, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lyson, T. A. (2004), Civic Agriculture: Reconnecting Farm, Food, and Community, Medford, MA: Tufts University Press.Google Scholar
McCay, B. J. and Acheson, J. M. (eds.) (1987), The Question of the Commons: The Culture & Ecology of Communal Resources, Tuscan: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
McIntyre, B. D., Herren, H. R., Wakhungu, J., and Watson, R. T. (eds.) (2009), International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD): Global Report. Washington, DC, USA: IAASTD.Google Scholar
Moser, S. C. and Ekstrom, J. A. (2010), ‘A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107 (51): 2202622031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myint, T. (2012), Governing International Rivers: Polycentric Politics in the Mekong and the Rhine, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, M. (1965), The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1965), Public entrepreneurship: A case study in ground water basin management, PhD dissertation, University of California-Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1986), ‘An agenda for the study of institutions’, Public Choice, 48 (1): 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1992), Crafting Institutions for Self-Governing Irrigation Systems, San Francisco, CA: ICS Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E., and Gardner, R. (1993), ‘Copying with Asymmetries in the Commons: Self-Governing Irrigation Systems Can Work’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7 (4): 93112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E., Lam, W.-F., and Pradhan, P. (2011), Improving Irrigation in Asia: Sustainable Performance of an Innovative Intervention in Nepal. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paavola, J. (2007), ‘Institutions and environmental governance: A reconceptualization’, Ecological Economics, 63 (1): 93103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plummer, R. and Armitage, D. (2007), ‘A resilience-based framework for evaluating adaptive co-management: Linking ecology, economics and society in a complex world’, Ecological Economics, 61 (1): 6274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poteete, A. M., Janssen, M. A., and Ostrom, E. (2010), Working Together: Collective Action, the Commons and Multiple Methods in Practice, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pretty, J. (1999), The Living Land: Agriculture, Food and Community Regeneration in the 21st Century. London, UK: Earthscan Publications.Google Scholar
Rammel, C., Stagl, S., and Wilfing, H. (2007), ‘Managing complex adaptive systems – a co-evolutionary perspective on natural resource management’, Ecological Economics, 63 (1): 921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, C. M., Bryan, B. A., MacDonald, D. H., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A., and Kalivas, T. (2009), ‘Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services’, Ecological Economics, 68 (5): 13011315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, A. (1955), ‘The fishery: The objectives of sole ownership’, Journal of Political Economy, 63 (2): 116124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shivakoti, G. P. and Bastakoti, R. C. (2006), ‘The robustness of Montane irrigation systems of Thailand in a dynamic human-water resources interface’. Journal of Institutional Economics, 2 (2): 227247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shivakoti, G. P. and Ostrom, E. (eds.) (2002), Improving Irrigation Governance and Management in Nepal, Oakland, CA: ICS Press.Google Scholar
Stiglitz, J. E. (2012), The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers our Future, New York, NY, USA: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Thornton, P., Jones, P., Alagarswamy, A., and Andresen, J. (2009), ‘Spatial variation of crop yield responses to climate change in east Africa’, Global Environmental Change, 19: 5465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trawick, P. B. (2001), ‘Successfully governing the commons: Principles of social organization in an andean irrigation system’, Human Ecology, 29 (1): 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallingford, H. R. (1997), Priorities for Irrigated Agriculture. Occasional Paper No. 1. Department of International Development, UK.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2002), The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale, Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
17
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

A multi-method approach to study robustness of social–ecological systems: the case of small-scale irrigation systems
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

A multi-method approach to study robustness of social–ecological systems: the case of small-scale irrigation systems
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

A multi-method approach to study robustness of social–ecological systems: the case of small-scale irrigation systems
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *