Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana

División de ciencias sociales y Humanidades

Complexity and Common-Pool Resources. A case

study of community forests of Mexico

Dissertation Submitted to the Master and Doctorate in Economic Sciences

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

Of

Doctor of Economic Sciences

By

HAKIZIMANA Eugene

Supervisor: Dr. Arturo Lara Rivero

Co-supervisor: Dr. Ignacio Llamas Huitrón

Mexico, Mexico City

July 2017
 Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to:

God

My family

Mexican and Rwandan community

ii
 Acknowledgment

I gratefully acknowledge the support of my supervisor Dr. Arturo Lara Rivero, and co-supervior
Dr. Ignacio Llamas Huitrón. I also acknowledge the support of each of my committee members:
Dra. Nora and Dra. Hortensia Moreno. I also want to thank the students of Master and Doctorate
in Economic Sciences for their supports and collaboration. Particular thanks go to Artemio Chavez,
Jaime Guadalpe, Carlos Zuñiga, Elder, Irana, Karina, Hector, Fransisco, Victor, Alberto. Finally,
I would like to acknowledge the financial support of the CONACyT.

iii
Table of Contents
Figures ............................................................................................................................................ 4

Tables ............................................................................................................................................. 5

Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... 6

General introduction .................................................................................................................... 7

Chapter 1. The complexity approach and methodology development for the analysis of
CPRs problem. ............................................................................................................................ 12

1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 12

1.2 E. Ostrom program and the complexity problem of the CPRs....................................... 12

1.3 The complexity of community forests ................................................................................ 14

1.4 An overview of Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework ..................... 15

1.5 Social-Ecological Systems (SESs) and the IAD framework ............................................... 20

1.6 An overview of E. Ostrom’s Social-Ecological System Framework .................................. 21

1.7 Research of case studies of the community forests ............................................................. 23

1.8 The E. Ostrom challenge to confront the complexity problem of the CPRs: IAD and SES
frameworks. ............................................................................................................................... 25

Chapter 2. Research methodology............................................................................................. 27

2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 27

2.2 The development of the IAD and SES frameworks in the perspective of scientific progress
of P. Kitcher .............................................................................................................................. 27

Conceptual progressiveness perspective ........................................................................ 28

Erotetic progress ............................................................................................................. 29

Practical progress ........................................................................................................... 30

Cognitive progress.......................................................................................................... 30

Organizational progress.................................................................................................. 31

1
 2.3 E. Ostrom method of case studies ....................................................................................... 31

2.4 The case-based Meta-Analysis method ............................................................................... 32

Chapter 3. The complexity problem of the CPRs and the IAD framework .......................... 45

3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 45

3.2 The complexity problem of the CPRs ................................................................................. 45

3.2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 45

3.2.2 The complexity of the CPRs ......................................................................................... 46

3.3. The IAD framework development to SES framework and the complexity problem of
CPRs .......................................................................................................................................... 47

3.3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 47

3.3.2 The IAD framework development and the complexity of the CPRs ............................ 47

3.3.3 The transition from IAD framework to SES Framework ............................................. 61

Chapter 4. The SES framework and the complexity problem of CPRs ................................ 65

4.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 65

4.2 E. Ostrom’s SES Framework and the complex SESs ......................................................... 65

4.3 The SES framework development and its implications for dealing with complexity
problem of SESs ........................................................................................................................ 68

SES framework in 2003 ......................................................................................................... 69

SES framework in 2004 ......................................................................................................... 71

SES framework in 2007 ......................................................................................................... 73

SES framework in 2011 ......................................................................................................... 81

Chapter 5. The Case-based study of the successful and unsuccessful conditions of Mexican
community forests ....................................................................................................................... 86

5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 86

5.2 The case studies ................................................................................................................... 86

5.3 The variable performance effects across the case studies ................................................... 90

2
 5.3.1 The homogeneous performance of variables across the case studies ........................... 90

5.3.2 Heterogeneous performances of variables across the case studies ............................... 91

5.3.3 Successful and unsuccessful case studies ..................................................................... 93

5.3.4 Performances of variables in successful and unsuccessful case studies ....................... 96

5.3.5 The effect sizes of Variable performances across successful and unsuccessful case
studies .................................................................................................................................. 101

5.3.6. The more relevant variables to explain the success and failure conditions. .............. 103

5.4 Variable interactions and configurations of patterns of interactions................................. 107

Research contribution and conclusions .................................................................................. 119

Research contribution .............................................................................................................. 119

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 121

Future works ............................................................................................................................. 123

Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 124

Bibliography of the case studies............................................................................................... 131

Annexes ...................................................................................................................................... 145

3
Figures
Figure 1: Variable components .................................................................................................... 37
Figure 2: Variable attachment...................................................................................................... 38
Figure 3: Theme variables ............................................................................................................ 39
Figure 4: Variable selection process from SESMAD ................................................................... 43
Figure 5: E. Ostrom’s working parts of institutional analysis in 1982 ........................................ 49
Figure 6: E. Ostrom’s three levels of institutional analysis in 1982 ............................................ 51
Figure 7: E. Ostrom’s framework for institutional analysis in 1985 ........................................... 53
Figure 8: A framework for Institutional Analysis in 1991............................................................ 56
Figure 9: E. Ostrom’s institutional analysis in 1994 ................................................................... 58
Figure 10: Institutional Analysis and Development Framework in 1999 .................................... 60
Figure 11: E. Ostrom’s complete framework for institutional analysis ....................................... 60
Figure 12: First conceptual model of Social-Ecological System ................................................. 70
Figure 13: A conceptual model of a social-ecological system ..................................................... 72
Figure 14: A Multitier Framework for Analyzing a Social-Ecological System............................ 75
Figure 15: Revised SES framework integrating the IAD and SES frameworks ........................... 80
Figure 16: Action Situations Embedded in Broader Social-Ecological Systems ......................... 81
Figure 17: Revised SES framework SES frameworks for further changes ................................... 82
Figure 18: Distribution of Case studies by States ........................................................................ 90
Figure 19: Clustering of the successful and unsuccessful case studies based on the 50 variables
with variance greater than zero .................................................................................................... 95
Figure 20: Underlying patterns of variables .............................................................................. 100
Figure 21: Variables with best underlying patterns which explain better the successful and
unsuccessful situations across the case studies .......................................................................... 104
Figure 22: Successful and unsuccessful case studies labeled by case numbers ......................... 107

4
Tables
Table 1:Variable classification ..................................................................................................... 36
Table 2:Variable type description ................................................................................................ 36
Table 3: Variable components in the form of E. Ostrom SES framework .................................... 40
Table 5: Second-Tier Variables in Framework for Analyzing SES .............................................. 76
Table 6: Case studies .................................................................................................................... 86
Table 7: The overall observed performance of the variables ....................................................... 92
Table 8: Model summary of analysis of 40 variables across 32 case studies .............................. 96
Table 9: Variable performances in the successful and unsuccessful case studies ....................... 97
Table 10: Variable effects on successful and unsuccessful situations across 32 case studies ... 102
Table 11: Variables that explain more the successful and unsuccessful situations ................... 103
Table 12: Model summary of 30 variables with best patterns to explain successful and unsuccessful
across 32 case studies. ................................................................................................................ 105
Table 13: The variables that best explain the successful and unsuccessful situations across the
case studies ................................................................................................................................. 106
Table 14: Variable performances in three higher successful case studies and in three lower
unsuccessful case studies ............................................................................................................ 108
Table 15: Variable performance in three successful case studies with lowest outcomes and three
unsuccessful case studies with highest outcomes........................................................................ 116

5
Abstract

The Common-Pool Resources (CPRs) problem is a complex one which impedes understanding of
the processes that lead to the resource improvements or destruction. This is the case of community
forests where a loss of forests persists even if several programs on the forest management were
established. The most important of these programs is one of E. Ostrom of governance of the CPRs
which recommend the use of Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) and Social Ecological
System (SES) frameworks to generate successful governance of CPRs like community forests.
Thus, this research work focuses on identifying how these frameworks helped to solve the
complexity problem embedded into the governance of the CPRs by studying how IAD framework
was emerged and transited to SES framework. By using the methodology of analysis of the
transition of IAD framework to SES framework and research of the case studies of community
forests of Mexico, this research work concludes that: The development of IAD framework and its
transition to SES framework helped to solve the problem of the complexity of the CPRs by being
converted into simple understandable frameworks to communicate the complexity of the CPRs.
The IAD framework helps to explain behavior and outcomes in complex institutional settings of
collective actions. Due to the shortcomings of the inefficiency evaluation of the impact of the
attributes of the resource system or units to situation action and the realized outcomes, and to
facilitate the analysis of the robustness of the SESs, the SES framework was developed and later
gave birth to Social-Ecological System Meta-Analysis Database (SESMAD) which facilitates the
analysis of SES case studies. By case studies of Mexican community forests’ research, 33 out of
50 variables were identified as the most significant to explain the successful or unsuccessful
situations across 32 case studies. Thus, the policy decisions in terms of the institutional analysis
and design must focus on these 33 variables.

6
General introduction

This research work results from a worldwide problematic loss of the forests, while they are one of
the most important1 Common-Pool Resources (CPRs) of the world. This problem persists even
though different studies marked a considerable scientific progress in establishing analytical
frameworks for sustainability of the Social-Ecological Systems (SESs). The most important of
these studies is E. Ostrom program of governance of the CPRs (Cumming, 2014), which
constitutes the theoretical and empirical underpinning for this work. According to the E. Ostrom,
the forests are complex social-ecological systems, hence lack of successful governance of these
resources is attributed to a misunderstanding of processes that lead to resource improvements or
deterioration by resource users (Ostrom, 2009). To solve the problem of misunderstanding of those
processes E. Ostrom and her colleagues within the Workshop of Political Theory and Policy
Analysis developed Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) and SES frameworks to help
academic researchers, resources users, and policy makers who are involved in CPRs management
to understand the complex processes that lead to poor or better outcomes. Hence, this work has the
purpose of studying how the IAD and SES framework were developed helping to solve the
complex problem related to the CPRs management. To achieve this purpose, the research
objectives were focused on. The objectives of this research work are divided into the general
objective and specific objectives and they are as follows: 1) the general objective is to investigate
the transition of IAD framework to SES framework, and how this transition helps to solve
complexity problem of CPRs management, 2) the specific objectives are: i) to use research of case
studies for determining a meta-analytical method of SES framework to solve complexity problem

1
The importance of the forest in human life is in its use. The history of humans is a story of forests and their use. Trees have
provided the principal fuel and building material of human societies since prehistoric times and now the forests are known as social,
economic and environmental resources to mankind. However, the fact that the human life is a history of using forests to improve
the quality of human life, the history of human civilization is also a history of deforestation . Nowadays, the forests are known as a
source of long-term economic benefits, and hence the local, national and global importance of forests for human well-being, socio-
economic development, poverty reduction, biodiversity and environmental conservation, and achievement of the Millennium
Development Goals is acknowledged. In addition to this, the forest has been always the subject matter of the study of the successful
governance of the CPRs to the E. Ostrom program. This is for example the establishment of the International Forestry Resources
and Institutions, E. Ostrom underlines this problem when she says “The problem of the loss of the forests is among the major
worldwide problem” (E. Ostrom, 2009, p.2) and the research on the forests have been a central point of the E. Ostrom research
enterprise.

7
of the CPRs in general and of Mexican community forests in particular, ii) to apply analysis of the
case studies to a concrete case study like community forests in Mexico.

To make sure that the above objectives were achieved, the following questions were answered:
firstly, what is a possible motive that pushed E. Ostrom to transit from IAD framework to SES
framework? secondly, how did the transition of IAD framework to SES framework help to solve
complexity problems of CPRs management embedded into variable interactions and in the
formation of patterns of interaction which in turn affect the overall outcomes? thirdly, how does a
the case studies’ research provide a systematic diagnosis about behavior aspects embedded into
SES framework to solve complex problems of Mexican community forests?

While the first chapter deals with determining how IAD and SES frameworks are convert into
frameworks for complex problems of the CPRs management, the second chapter is about the
research methodology, the above questions are answered through the third to the fifth chapter as
follows:
The first question tries to draw a concern about the reason why the IAD framework was emerged
and how it was developed. To answer this question helps to understand the importance of the IAD
framework to solve the complexity problem related to the CPRs management. It is answered
through the chapter three of this work, and by answering it, the second question is introduced.
The second question is concerned with identifying the shortcomings of the IAD framework to the
fact that there was a necessity of developing another powerful and robust framework to answer the
problems related to the CPRs management. It tries to identify in which situations the IAD serves
or cannot serve to solve the problems related to the CPRs management. It identifies the strengths
and weakness of the IAD framework which pushed E. Ostrom to think about another powerful
framework which is the SES framework. This question is answered through the third chapter of
this work.
The third question consists of identifying if the transition of the IAD framework to SES framework
was in the purpose of solving the complexity problem related to the CPRs management. According
to E. Ostrom, the unsuccessful situation of the CPRs management results from misunderstanding
of the complex processes that lead to better or worse outcomes. Thus, to respond to this question
is an important contribution for solving the complex problem of the CPRs management, and it is
answered through the chapter three and four.

8
The fourth question is about the empirical research of the case studies of the community forests in
Mexico. To answer this question helps to identify the variables whose interactions and formed
patterns of interactions explain the successful or unsuccessful conditions. It is answered in the
chapter five.
The fifth and final question draws attention to the previous question by questioning the importance
of having a complexity approach for successful managing the CPRs.

The above research questions were answered through the proving the following research
hypotheses:

The first hypothesis of this research work is that it was expected that the variable performances in
successful case studies are significantly different from those of unsuccessful case studies.

The second hypothesis is that it was expected that the variable interactions and patterns of
interactions perform well in successful case studies and poorly perform in unsuccessful case
studies.

To achieve the objectives of this work, to be able to answer the research questions, and to prove
the hypotheses, a theoretical analysis and an empirical analysis were used. The theoretical analysis
deals with the development of the IAD framework to the SES framework, and how they have been
used in problem solving related to the successful governance of the CPRs. The empirical analysis
is focused on the application of SES framework to solve complex problems underlying into
commons systems’ governance. The empirical research analysis consists of 32 cases studies of the
community forests of Mexico, and covers a period of 2000-2016. By using Social Ecological
System Meta-Analysis Database (SESMAD) method, 60 variables2 were applied to the case
studies evaluation process in order to identify how their behaviors into interaction patterns affect
the overall outcomes from the community forests. The methodology to carry out the theoretical
as well as the empirical analyses is as follows:
• Theoretical analysis of E. Ostrom’s IAD framework to help to solve the complexity
problem related to the CPRs management, and how its transition to SES framework was in
intention to develop a powerful framework which is capable to respond better to the

2
The 60 variables were chosen among 172 variables because they are the most variables characterizing the system
of the community forests. These variables can be found in annex 1.

9
 complexity problem embedded into the CPRs management. To be able to perform this task,
the scientific progress perspective of P. Kitcher, 1993 is used.
• Utilization of SESMAD method as analytical model of diagnosis into community forests’
SES by Mexican case studies identification, codification and analysis of variable results
relevant to the community forests’ SESs, and interpretation of the results. The use of the
SESMAD method is in line with the scientific progress of the SES framework.
• Use of meta-analysis techniques (statistical analysis, Analytic Hierarchy Priorities,
Multiple Correspondence Analysis, and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software) for data
analysis, identification of patterns of interactions and their effect on the outcomes of the
community forests in Mexico.
Finally, the analysis and interpretation of data were done through the relational database and the
use of statistical parameters and literature review on the institutional change for economic
effectiveness of the CPRs.

This research work is composed of five chapters which are the following:
Chapter 1 entitled “The complexity approach and methodological development for the analysis of
CPRs problem.”, this chapter explores how the IAD and SES frameworks are instrument to
understand the complexity embedded into the functionality and governance of the CPRS.
Chapter 2 entitled “Research methodology” is a description of the methodology used in this study.
It consists of describing the theoretical analysis as well as the empirical analysis of this research.
The theoretical analysis consists of identifying how the problem of the CPRs management is a
complex problem, and why and how the IAD was emerged and developed to solve the complexity
problem of the CPRs management, and that the transition of IAD framework to SES framework
was in the purpose of constructing a powerful tool which is capable to respond to the problem of
the CPRs. To achieve this, a perspective of scientific progress of P. Kitcher, 1993 is referred to.
As it was mentioned, chapter 2 also contains the methodology of 32 Mexican community forest
case studies.
Chapter 3 entitled “The complexity problem of the CPRs and the IAD framework” explores the
origin and evolutionary process of the IAD framework until it was transited to SES framework,
and how this process contributed to solve the complex problem of the CPRs. It determines the
reason why E. Ostrom was pushed to transit from the IAD framework to SES framework without
abandoning the concept and utilization of the IAD framework to solve the complex problem of the
10
CPRs management. To be able to carry out this evaluative analysis, the scientific progress
perspective of P. Kitcher, 1993 is used.
Chapter 4 entitled “The SES framework and the complexity problem of the SESs” deals with a
description of the emergence of the SES framework and how it was developed as a supplement to
IAD framework to solve the complex problem related to the CPRs management. It refers to the
scientific progress in the perspective of the P. Kitcher in order to carry out a follow systematic and
evaluative analysis.
Chapter 5 entitled “The Case-based study of the successful and unsuccessful conditions of
Mexican community forests” is about a study of case studies of Mexican community forests
according to E. Ostrom SES framework. It shows a configuration of interactions and formation of
patterns of interactions which in return affect, and are affected by, the realized outcomes form the
community forests as complex SES. It shows how identification of a configuration of variables
into interactions and forms of patterns of interaction solve complex problem related to the
management of Mexican community forests as complex SES. It shows the relevant variables that
explain the successful and unsuccessful conditions among the case studies. This work ends with
the overall conclusions, possible recommendations and plans for future work.

11
Chapter 1. The complexity approach and methodology development
for the analysis of CPRs problem.
1.1 Introduction
This chapter consists of identifying how the complexity problem of the CPRs raised the emergence
and development of the IAD and SES frameworks for helping the academic researchers, policy
makers, and the community members to understand the complexity embedded into the governance
of the CPRs. It has the objective of identifying why were IAD and SES frameworks’ development
to deal with the problems related to the governance of the CPRs. It responds the question of ¿why
were IAD and SES frameworks developed in the field of the CPRs? The chapter is structured into
the following sections: the first section is E. Ostrom program and the complexity problem of the
CPRs, and the focus was put on the E. Ostrom, 1990; 2005; 2009; and 2012. The second section
is complexity of the community forests, and the texts focused on are E. Ostrom, 2005; 2009; 2012;
Gross, 2011; Northrop & Connor, 2013; and Niazi & Hussain, 2013. The third section is an
overview of the Institutional Analysis Development (IAD) framework, and authors focussed on
are Kiser and Ostrom 1982; E. Ostrom,1994; 2005; 2006, 2012. The fourth section is Social-
Ecological Systems (SESs) and the IAD framework, and focused texts are Anderies, et al., 2004;
Ostrom, et al., 2012; Ostrom & Cox, 2010. The fifth section is overview of E. Ostrom’s Social-
Ecological System Framework, and the texts focused on are Anderies, et al., 2004; E. Ostrom,
2007; 2009; McGinnis & Ostrom, 2014.

1.2 E. Ostrom program and the complexity problem of the CPRs

The major contribution of the E. Ostrom program is the problem presentation of the commons in
a different view from the one of the conventional theory by which, the problem of the misuse of
the CPRs is inevitable, hence the state intervention or the privatization are necessary. However,
these policy recommendations were unable to effectively and efficiently solve the problem of the
commons (Ostrom, 1990). Hence due to the importance of the common resources in everyday life
and their problematic (Manning, et al., 2016), and the fact that policy recommendations of the
conventional theory were unable to remove the tragedy of the commons, a new program to study
the commons was necessary which is in this case the E. Ostrom program of governance of the
CPRs.

12
Like the conventional theory, the problem of the CPRs is contextualized as a problem of
overharvesting and misuse of these resources which lead to resource destruction. According to the
E. Ostrom’s program of study of the CPRs, the problems of overharvesting and misuse of the CPRs
are rarely due to a single cause, they are inherently complex and to solve this problem, it is
necessary to have a thorough understanding of those processes that lead to the CPR destruction
(Ostrom, 2009). They do not deserve simple solutions as those provided by the theories influenced
by the G. Hardin 1968 model and Olson, 1965 (Ostrom, 2005, p. 219). This leads us to study the
problem of the CPRs in terms of the complexity3 as a source of understanding the possible
successful CPRs management.

According to the theories influenced by the model4 of G. Hardin, 1968 and the logic of collective
action by Olson, 1965, the problem of the CCPRs is inevitable, hence the intervention of the third
party either the government or the privatization are advised (E. Ostrom, 1990). These theories were
controverted by the E. Ostrom program on the commons by which the community members can
successful manage the CPRs by institutional design and arrangement within collective action
without intervention of the state or the market (Ibidem). However, without better understanding of
the processes that lead to improvement or destruction of the resources, the problem of the CPRs
can continue to exist. The misunderstanding of these processes is caused by fact that the CPRs are
complex resources (E. Ostrom, 2009). According to the E. Ostrom research program, the
complexity problem of the CPRs is attributable to the nature of the resources or the action situation
in which incentives and actions towards the use of resources are realized (Ostrom, 2005, p. 117).
This is because when the natural resource systems are complex, their interactions with social,
economic, and political systems impede collective actions by confusing cause-effect relations, for
example the connection between resource use and resource condition (Ostrom, et al., 2012, p. 129).
Thus, to solve the complex problem of the CPRs, it is necessary to have a perspective of a complex
system which helps to understand the processes that lead to resource improvements or deterioration
(Ostrom, 2009). The process of learning and understanding these processes is not an easy task. To
overcome this barrier, E. Ostrom and her colleagues developed Institutional Analysis and
Development (IAD) and Social-Ecological System (SES) frameworks to help resource users and

3
This refers to “a subjective measure of the difficulty in describing and modeling a system (thing or process) and
thus being able to predict its behavior” (Northrop & Connor, 2013, p. 18).
4
This refers to the tragedy of the commons.

13
policy makers to generate a successful governance of CPRs like community forests. This is by
helping to understand the complexity embedded in resource systems through cognizing how
combination and recombination of specific variables produce or not desired outcomes.

In this context, the IAD and SES frameworks are used as cognitive frameworks to identify the
degree of complexity of the CPR under study (Gros, 2011, p. 243). By doing this, the CPRs are
not per se viewed as complex as it was argued in the E. Ostrom program rather their complexity is
reflected and understood by the frameworks used to solve the complex problems related to CPRs’
use (Adamsen II, 2000). Because, “the complexity is not a property usefully attributed to natural
systems but only to the models of such systems.” (Northrop & Connor, 2013, pp. 18-19). In this
context, the explicit models are necessary to communicate the aspects of natural and complex
behavior of the CPRs like community forests. However, the systems of natural resources are not
easy to model, it is necessary using a simple comprehensive framework to govern various aspects
of modeling (Niazi & Hussain, 2013). Hence, the understanding of the complexity problem of the
community forests is done through the analysis of development of the IAD framework to the SES
framework.

1.3 The complexity of community forests

The forest conditions depend on the interactions of forest ecosystems and the social systems. Forest
ecosystems are affected by social, economic, and political factors (Moran, et al., 2002). This
attribute makes the forest to be a complex SES which causes that the collective action in forest
management to be totally different from the collective action in other CPRs (Ostrom, et al., 2003).
This fact pushes to treat the forests as a special case of the CPRs.

Moreover, there has been an increasing acceptance that forests are a global resource (Ostrom,
2008), with authoritative control at multiple scales further removed from the local level
management of the forests than ever before. There has been an increasing appropriation of
allocative resources for a global community that put the management for sustainability of the
community forests into the conflict and causes a dilemma that should be resolved through the
collective action (Ostrom, et al., 2003). This conflict is presented in the form of lack of exclusivity
in the exercise of authoritative rights over resources when there is an operational-scale change
from fine to coarse results in deterioration of management from the point of view of the people
who have formerly had authoritative rights.

14
One way to reduce the amount of conflicts over forest use would be to increase the understanding
of the difference between allocative and authoritative aspects by the parties involved in the forest
benefits sharing. This is done through the understanding of the community forests in terms of SES
and the problems related to their use, the development of the common property rights and the
institutional change for their sustainable management. This converts the forest in a complex system
which requires new methods and tools of analysis (Ostrom, et al., 2012). The tools used to tackle
the complexity in the CPRs are IAD framework and SES framework. The former framework serves
to study the institutions that govern the forest ecosystems at multi-scales (Moran & Ostrom, 2005),
and helps to carry out a comparative case study which permitted E. Ostrom to establish eight design
principles to characterize robust institutions for managing complex CPRs like the forests (Cox, et
al., 2010). These principles are: i) Define clear group boundaries, ii) Match rules governing use of
common goods to local needs and conditions, iii) Ensure that those affected by the rules can
participate in modifying the rules, iv) Make sure the rule-making rights of community members
are respected by outside authorities, v) Develop a system, carried out by community members, for
monitoring members’ behavior, vi) Use graduated sanctions for rule violators, vii) Provide
accessible, low-cost means for dispute resolution, viii) Build responsibility for governing the
common resource in nested tiers from the lowest level up to the entire interconnected system
(Ostrom, 1990). Whereas the SES framework is used to describe an integrated system of people
and nature in which feedbacks occur between human and biophysical system elements (Cumming,
2014). The innovation in this integral approach is that it is composed of both a social system and
an ecological system, and the interactions of these two systems.

1.4 An overview of Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework

The forests constitute a major global resource systems. However, they face the problem of the
deforestation (Ostrom, 2008). This is because some community forest users are not able to
understand the processes that lead to the successful or unsuccessful situations of these common
resources (Ostrom, 2009). The misunderstanding of these processes results from the fact that the
community forests are complex, and the problem of the complexity causes their management to
fall into a social dilemma. In Mexico for example, even if their collective actions to govern the
community forests have got a common set of variables used to describe their structures and the
rules to govern those collective actions, there is no evidence that the community members based
on the rights granted to them are able to process information got in order to predict their actions,

15
in order to help them re-evaluating CPRs (forests) in face of the external market forces, all in all
trying to achieve maximization of the benefits. Besides, the sources of information are limited, the
information processing capacities are limited to the community forest users which constitute
handicaps on the community forests governance, and this contradict the E. Ostrom hypothesis that
when certain conditions are met, groups of people are capable of sustainably managing their
common resources. Re-evaluation process is necessary because the forest benefits do not only
follow the input-processing-output evaluation process but also other externalities caused by effects
of planting and cutting of the forests. Thus, these constitute a social dilemma of community forests
governance. Hence, the use of the IAD framework is necessary as a useful and testable method to
analyze the community forests dilemmas (Hess & Ostrom, 2004).

In this work, the IAD framework is contextualized as “a meta-theoretical5 conceptual map that
identifies an action situation, patterns of interactions, outcomes, and an evaluation of these
outcomes” (Ostrom & Cox, 2010, p. 5). It is a diagnostic tool that can be used to investigate any
broad subject where humans repeatedly interact within rules and norms that guide their choice of
strategies and behaviors (Ostrom, et al., 2012). It emphasizes on the role of the participants, rules
or institutions, the actions and the results associated with a situation of collective action.

The IAD as a tool of analysis6 copes with an analytical process which involves the steps to follow
for carrying out a successful analysis. These steps generally are: the identification of the action
arena and its influence on the end results of the situation action, the identification of the rules in
use and their influence on the action situation analyzed on constitutional, collective-choice and
operational levels, and the identification of the attributes of the community7 and their influence on
the action situation, and finally the identification of the biophysical or material conditions and their
influence on the situation action (Kiser and Ostrom 1982; E. Ostrom, 1994; 2006).

5
It is a theoretical neutral. It does not represent a specific theory. It describes the array of elements that is used in
specific theories about institutions.
6
It helps in making institutional comparison and evaluation.
7
These include the norms of behavior generally accepted in the community, the level of common understanding that
potential participants share about the structure of special types of action arenas, the extent of homogeneity in the
preferences of those living in a community, and the distribution of resources among those affected. The term “culture”
is frequently applied to this bundle of variables. Attributes of the Community can also refer to trust, reciprocity,
common understanding, social capital, cultural repertoire.

16
The action situation is structured into the following set of variables: (i) the set of actors, (ii) the
specific positions to be filled by participants, (iii) the set of allowable actions and their linkage to
outcomes, (iv) the potential outcomes that are linked to individual sequences of actions, (v) the
level of control each participant has over choice, (vi) the information available to participants about
the structure of the action situation, and (vii) the costs and benefits which serve as incentives and
restrictive assigned to actions and outcomes.

Because the most operational activities related to natural resources can be conceptualized as
involving provision, production, appropriation, and assignment (Ostrom, et al., 1994), the
knowledge of a set of variables of the situation action helps in getting solutions to those problems
of common-pool resources (E. Ostrom,1994; 2005; 2006). The process of getting solutions is done
in structured organizational arrangements through the combination of working seven key rules that
configurationally operate to affect the structure of the situation action (Ostrom, 1986) and these
rules are: entry and exit rules or boundary rules, position rules, scope rules, authority rules,
aggregation rules, information rules, and payoff rules (Ostrom, 2005, pp. 186-208).

Besides of being a tool of institutional analysis, IAD framework also permits evaluation of
outcomes. The evaluation consists of identifying if the outcomes predicted confirm to the realized
outcomes in accordance to the evaluative criteria (Ostrom, 1994, p.36). The outcomes that are
evaluated are those that are achieved and those that could be achieved under alternative
institutional arrangements. The evaluative criteria proposed by Ostrom are: (1) economic
efficiency, (2) equity through fiscal equivalence, (3) redistribution equity, (4) accountability, (5)
conformance to general morality, and (6) adaptability (Ostrom, 2006). These criteria may be
applied to the outcomes as well as to the processes to achieve the outcomes. If the outcomes
realized are not desired, they can be justified through institutional change.

The IAD framework is highly reliable because it is a multi-theoretical8 framework. This helps to
fulfill E. Ostrom compromise that complex problems require complex solutions and explanations.

8
According to E. Ostrom, IAD framework provides a meta-theoretical language that can be used to compare theories
and tries to identify the universal elements that any theory relevant to the same kind of phenomena needs to include.
It identifies the elements and general relationships among these elements needed for institutional analysis, and
organizes diagnostic and prescriptive inquiry. The theories such as economic theory, game theory, transaction cost
theory, social choice theory, conventional theory, and theories of public goods and common-pool resources are all
compatible with the IAD framework.

17
The IAD framework does not limit an analyst to the use of one theory. Depending upon the context
of the decision environment, an analyst may in fact use the framework as a foundation for
investigating the predictive power of complementary or competing theories and models (E.
Ostrom, 1994).

It overcomes the barriers created by languages associated with several levels of analysis, as well
as different scientific disciplines (Lara, 2015). The IAD framework aims identifying structural
variables that are present in all institutional arrangements and actors’ structural patterns of
interactions (at the constitutional, collective choice, and operational level of interactions) in so-
called action situations, and the resulting outcomes (Ostrom, 2011).

The IAD framework acts as meta-analysis9 which makes it specific appropriate for analyses of
various types of commons and common-pool resources (Ostrom, et al., 2012). It directs in coding
process by defining the variables to be coded and analyzed. It helps to carry out institutional
settings within the complex social and ecological systems by facilitating the research of case
studies (Ibidem). Even though, the IAD have played an important role in CPRs management like
community forests, as well as in other areas of policy analysis like “ economic development issues
including infrastructure, privatization, fiscal policy, credit allocation, health and human services,
and resource management; common-pool resource management including forests, fisheries,
irrigation, water resources, and grazing; local and metropolitan public services and governance;
State/Regional/Provincial public services and governance; federal public services and governance;
constitutional design; international relations” (Ostrom & Polski, 1999). The IAD framework
application was criticized by arguing that it pays little importance to ecological and larger socio-
economic contexts, as well as to the multiple levels and social–ecological complexity in which
CPR management takes place. This shows that it ignores the social reality of dynamic and complex
systems in which ecological and social interactions occur.

To understand the above criticism, let us review the concept of complex system. First, the IAD is
organized in building blocks which are in interactions to produce a given outcomes (Ostrom,
1985). From the historical perspective and developmental use of the IAD framework, the block
of the institution settings has gained the more attention than the biophysical and material

9
It helps to carry out the analysis of the existing studies or analysis of analyses.

18
conditions, and the attributes of the community which are in the same category. Thus, it is observed
that the IAD framework as a tool of analysis focuses on how rules affect the structure of action
situations instead of utilizing all elements of the whole framework. In order words, the central
attention is put on how the institutional arrangements affect the situation action and the outcomes.
In this context, the institutions10 are considered as the only element that affects behavior in any
situation at a time and place.

The fact that more weight was given to institutional settings causes the IAD framework to be
highly concerned with the social issues because even if it deals with the analysis of how rules,
biophysical and material conditions, and attributes of the community affect the structures of the
action arenas (situation action and participants), the incentives of individuals, and the resulting
outcomes, the biophysical and material conditions and the attribute of the community are treated
as a given. Whereas these factors act into dynamic systems. Which means that their status are
results of the patterns of interactions of the variables which change in place and time. Thus, there
is a need of developing another framework which also pays attention to the ecological systems.

In other words, based on the importance of the institutions in the day to day life (Ostrom, 2005),
and in the policy analysis in particular (Ostrom & Polski, 1999), the theoretical and structural
constructions of the IAD framework on the concept of identifying how institutional settings affect
the individual behavior and the incentives which affect the overall outcomes in the real world, it
is an important contribution in the course of solving complex problems of CPRs, as well as of
social issues. Nevertheless, as it was seen not only the institutions affect the individual behavior
and incentives but also the biophysical and material conditions, and attributes of the community.
As far as a complex system is concerned, the theoretical effect of these factors to the action arenas
and the overall outcomes are underrepresented. Hence, to respond to this issues, there should be a
development of another framework.

A second view of the IAD framework criticism is the multiple scale representation which involves
the interactions of social and ecological systems. As far as the size of the CPR and multi-levels of
governance are concerned, The IAD framework is useful in small CPRs without impact of external
links of social, economic, and political settings, and in the interactions with other resources. In

10
They refer to “the shared concepts used by humans in repetitive situations organized by rules, norms and
strategies.” (Ostrom, 2010).

19
other words, in more complex cases, the IAD framework is of little importance. Hence, the SES
framework was developed to deal with analysis of problems related the large CPRs linked with
social, economic, and political settings, and interactions with other resources. Thus, there was a
need to develop another framework that was also capable to analyze the problems related to large
and complex CPRs.

Based on the above criticism, E. Ostrom decided to transit from the IAD framework to SES
framework. The SES framework is highly related to its predecessor IAD framework. It is more
suitable to be used to those complex problems related to interactions of the social and ecological
systems, and to those complex problems of small and large CPRs with impact of external links of
social, economic, and political settings, and interactions with other resources.

1.5 Social-Ecological Systems (SESs) and the IAD framework

The IAD framework was criticized of paying a little attention to ecological systems, but it offers a
starting point to study ecological systems and their relations with social systems. This is done
through the biophysical and material conditions, and the attributes of the community blocks,
although the interactions between these blocks are not described by the IAD framework. To
establish the interactions between these blocks, the nature of the resources and the community
characteristics should be studied.

Throughout the history of the IAD framework, the interest in the nature of the resources was put
on biophysical and material conditions with the purpose of identifying the effect of this block to
the situation action (Ostrom, 2005; Ostrom & Polski, 1999). Two factors were based on to describe
the effect of the nature of the resources to the situation action: the characteristics 11 of a resource
and its complexity (Ostrom, et al., 2012). The nature of a resource is described with two factors,
the attributes of the community which are described with the size of the group of the resource users
and their heterogeneity (Ibidem). Thus, these factors are not enough in the IAD framework to
understand the complexity embedded into the CPRs management.

To avoid a confusion, in this work the CPRs are considered as SES. Most ecological systems used
by multiple individuals can be classified as CPRs. In this case, we can say the community forests.
The CPRs generate finite quantities of resource units (Ostrom, 2007b). One person’s harvesting of

11
These are for example the mobility of resource units (such as water and fish) and the possibility of storing them.

20
resource units from a CPR subtracts from the quantity of resource units available to others. In this
work, the concept of SESs is used interchangeably by the CPRs to mean those resources
collectively used by a group of individuals or the community. This is in the same context that the
ecological systems are CPRs characterized by non-exclusion and substractability (Anderies, et al.,
2003).

The SES has gotten various definitions but only two related definitions of E. Ostrom and her
colleagues are referred to in this work to understand what SES means. In the first way, SES can
be defined as “an ecological system intricately linked with and affected by one or more social
systems. An ecological system can loosely be defined as an interdependent system of organisms
or biological units. Social simply means tending to form cooperative and interdependent
relationships with others of one’s kind” (Anderies, et al., 2004). This definition puts more
emphasis on the state of ecological conditions over the human actions. When the incentives and
actions of the resources users are not in control, there are overharvesting and destruction of the
resource system effects.

In the second way, SES can be defined as “social systems in which some of the interdependent
relationships among humans are mediated through interactions with biophysical and non-human
biological units.” (Ostrom & Cox, 2010). This definition puts more emphasis on the possibility of
change in human behavior towards the ecological system depending on its state. Social systems
are thought of as interdependent systems of organisms. Thus, both social and ecological systems
contain units that interact interdependently and each may contain interactive subsystems as well.
The term SES is used to refer to the subset of social systems in which some of the interdependent
relationships among humans are mediated through interactions with biophysical and non-human
biological units” (Anderies, et al., 2004). The interactions between social systems and the
ecological systems results into the complex system whose problems related to the management of
the SESs like community forests are complex too. Thus, to solve these complex problems required
another framework rather than IAD framework.

1.6 An overview of E. Ostrom’s Social-Ecological System Framework

The E. Ostrom’s SES framework is delivered and closely related to Institutional Analysis
Development framework (McGinnis & Ostrom, 2014). It was developed due to the shortcomings
of the IAD framework. Like the IAD framework, it is a meta-theoretical framework which attempts

21
to identify the universal elements that characterize any theory relevant to the study of the SESs,
hence, it is a conceptual map, and it also identifies the basic working parts and the critical
relationships among those elements.

Although the SES framework has some common characteristics with the IAD framework, it also
has some differences as the following ones.
• The action situation in the SES framework is affected by the resource system, governance
system, and system of the actors. Here, a system means that each tier is a result of the
inputs, processes, and outcomes. In other words, each tier is a result of the variables,
variable interactions, and outcomes. The outcomes can be desired or not desired depending
on states of variables, their interactions and their patterns of interactions.
• The SES framework provides means in which the broader contextual variables are linked
with the micro-situational variables. This is for example at micro-situational level, the
action situations which produce interactions and outcomes are affected by the resource
system and the governance system, which then are affected by broader contextual variables
of social, economic, and political settings and related ecosystems.
• The SES framework helps to identify the impact of the ecological systems through the
deposits of the resource systems and resource units on the action situations. Hence, the SES
framework is recommended while solving those complex problems where the resource
systems highly affect the action situations.
The SES framework is a decomposable system and it is built on three aspects of decomposable
complex system which are the conceptual partitioning of variables into classes and subclasses, the
existence of relatively separable subsystems that are independent of each other in the
accomplishment of many functions and development but eventually affect each other’s
performance, and complex systems are greater than the sum of their parts. Based on these aspects,
SES framework is composed of three ‘‘first-level core subsystems,’’ namely: (i) a resource system
and resource units, (ii) a governance system, and (iii) users’ system which affect and affected by
linked to social, economic, and political settings and related ecosystems. These subsystems contain
a set of variables which are also a set of ‘‘second-level’’ variables of the SES and they constitute
a basis in the SES analysis (Ostrom, 2007). According to E. Ostrom 2007, the second-level
contains 42 variables which have been increased to 172 variables due to its further development
and its interest in research field (SESMAD, 2014). The analysis of the interactions and patterns
22
of interactions of these variables helps to understand how the same processes within different cases
can lead to different results, either as improvement in or destruction of resource systems, case
study method was used.

The SES as a meta-theoretical instrument, it often draws confusion with theory and model concepts
(Ostrom, 2011). The development and use of theories help diagnosis into the framework, and
enable the analyst to specify which elements of a framework are particularly relevant to specific
questions and to make general working assumptions about the shape and strength of these
elements. Theories make assumptions that are necessary for an analyst to diagnose as specific
phenomenon, explain its processes, and predict outcomes. Multiple theories are usually compatible
with one framework. In the case of community forests governance, theories help identifying core
variables to be included in the analysis, and making assumptions about variable interactions and
configurations among the case studies. In contrast, the development and use of models involve
making precise assumptions about a limited set of variables and parameters to derive precise
predictions about the results of combining these variables using a specific theory. Multiple models
are compatible with most theories. A method of case studies is highly recommended for Social-
Ecological System analysis due to its flexible analytical method.

1.7 Research of case studies of the community forests

The case studies have played an important role in the study of the CPRs. An individual case studies
provide detailed information about interrelationships between human activities and environmental
processes. The comparative work of case studies allows to test common interrelationships and
patterns of interactions found considering the spatial and time factors. Such research allows the
identification of common patterns and processes and permits the testing of theories and hypotheses
regarding forest change as well as the evaluation of policies (Moran & Ostrom, 2005).

The case studies consider how the characteristics of natural resources affect the complexity of
management and their implications for collective action (Ostrom, et al., 2012). In the case of
Mexican community forests case studies, complexity refers to attributes of community forests,
ecological systems, and socioeconomic and political systems that affect the ability of resource
users to recognize how their actions affect the condition of the resource. Complexity limits the
ability of individuals to identify the full set of possible outcomes or assign probabilities to
outcomes of specific actions. Thus, complexity makes it more difficult for groups to achieve a

23
common understanding of the resource system. Thus, the case studies help to construct the theory
which takes in account the complexity of the relationships between social and ecological systems.

The community forests as CPRs12 have played an important role in the development of the IAD
framework by being part of the empirical research on the successful governance of the CPRs by
the local communities or members through the collective action. The community forests are among
the case studies examined by the steering committee of the National Research Council (NRC) in
1983 on the workability of the management of the CPRs by the communities (Ostrom, et al., 2012,
p. 98). With the relevant and important findings on the common property management, the
committee gained more support of the NRC of the U.S academy of sciences and become the Panel
on Common Property Resource Management in the Board on Science and Technology for
International Development. This transformation reflected how important the problem of the
common property management was.

To face the empirical challenges from various disciplines engaged in the research on the common
property resource management in different parts of the world, the IAD framework was adopted by
the NRC panel in 1985 (Ibid.: p.99). The adoption of the IAD framework was justified by a
presentation of nineteen case studies among them are the community forests case studies. Not only
the studies of common property within the case studies marked the importance of the IAD
framework but also the formation of the CPRs research program in the workshop in Political
Theory and Policy Analysis at the Indiana University (Ibid.: p.184). This shows that the
community forests case studies are highly influential to the study of the CPRs and show the
importance of IAD framework as a tool of analysis. The empirical analysis of case studies like
community forests played an important role in the development of the IAD framework. Due to the
case studies, the NRC Panel increasingly became aware of the IAD framework in analyzing the
collective action for development of the accurate institutions for better governance of the CPRs
(Ibid.: p.106).

Since 1985, the year in which the IAD was adopted by the RNC Panel, it has suffered various
changes for its better performance. Its amelioration permitted to be utilized as a tool for conducting

12
The community forests as CPRs are natural resources characterized by two attributes: (1) substantial difficulty, but
it is not impossible, to exclude potential users from benefiting from these resources and (2) the substractability of
benefits consumed by one individual from those available to others (E. Ostrom, 1990; 1997; 1998; 2005).

24
the meta-analysis of the case studies and to be a pillar of analysis of international institutions on
the forests like those realized by International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI). Thus, to
base on the study of the community forests case studies in Mexico to solve the complex problem
of the CPRs management is theoretically and empirically supported.

The IAD framework played an important role in helping to conduct the research of case studies to
address the complex institutional settings for solving the problem of the collective action.
However, with the increase of the importance of the SES framework to address the complexity of
the relationships between social and ecological systems, the meta-analysis of the case studies
became very important (SESMAD, 2014). It became very important because of its methodological
complexity (Pigott, 2012), which is suitable to the meta-approach context of the transition of IAD
framework to SES framework while solving complex problem of the CPRs management. Thus,
the study of the Mexican community case studies constitutes a best empirical research to identify
how the transition from IAD framework to SES framework is in the purpose to respond to complex
problem of the CPRs management embedded into the social and ecological systems.

1.8 The E. Ostrom challenge to confront the complexity problem of the CPRs: IAD
and SES frameworks.
The problem of the CPRs is a complex problem and it needs a complexity approach to understand
those processes that lead to success or unsuccessful conditions. This can be identified by the
parsimony of the IAD framework and SES framework in explaining the complex behavior of the
community forests. This was identified by the analysis of a transition of the IAD framework to
SES framework where the complexity problem plays an important role in this transition. It is also
justified by the study of the Mexican community forest case studies by showing the potentialities
of using the SES framework to solve the complex problem related to the CPRs management.

The purpose of the transition of the IAD framework to SES framework was to sacrifice the IAD
framework in much detail to keep the proper essence of the CPRs functionality to have desired
outcomes. The IAD framework deals with this functionality by determining how institutional
settings can be used to realize the desired outcomes of the resource use. However, as far as most
of the CPRs like community forests are SES, the IAD framework was unable to completely address
the complexity problem of these resources. The IAD framework was unable to address the
complexity of the ecological systems as it has been able in the case of the social systems.

25
Another motive to move from IAD framework to SES framework is to develop a capable
framework to analyze the robustness of the SESs. The IAD framework is useful in analysis of how
rules, biophysical and material conditions, and the attributes of the community affect the structures
of action arenas; it is also useful in the analysis of the incentives that individual face, and the
resulting outcomes in the small CPRs without impact of external links of social, economic, and
political settings, and interactions with other resources. Hence, the SES framework was developed
to deal with analysis of the problems related the large CPRs linked with social, economic, and
political settings, and interactions with other resources.

To solve the complexity problem embedded into the policy analysis of the SESs without falling
into either of two analytical and policy traps: (1) deriving and recommending policy blueprints or
‘panaceas’; or (2) asserting ‘my case is unique’, the SES framework helps to carry out the case
study research within large ecological system.

Through the study of the Mexican case studies, it was identified that there are 10 common variables
in all case studies and this fact implies a common behavior shared by all case studies; this fact
supports that the policy analysts must not be trapped into the consideration that each case is unique.
However, to understand the complex processes that lead to success or failure conditions, the
analysis of the case studies helped to identify 33 variables whose interactions and formation of
patterns of interaction highly affect successful or unsuccessful conditions across 32 case studies.
This proves that the blue print solutions are harmful in the management of the CPRs because of
the complexity embedded in these resources. This also support the idea that community forests
should be considered as complex SES by the policy analysts as well as by the scholars.

26
Chapter 2. Research methodology
2.1 Introduction
The objective of this chapter is to describe the methods used in this work to achieve the objectives
of: 1) why was E. Ostrom pushed to move from IAD framework to SES framework, and how the
development from the IAD framework to the SES framework helped to solve complex problem of
CPRs management, 2) to identify how far case-based research provides a meta-analytical method
to formulate a systematic diagnosis about behavior aspects embedded into SES framework to
suggest possible solution for solving complex problems of CPRs in general and Mexican
community forests in particular, 3) to identify how research of the case studies can be applied to a
concrete case study like community forests in Mexico. To achieve the first objective, the
perspective of scientific progress of P. Kitcher, 1993 is used. To achieve the second and the third
objectives, the research of the case studies of the Mexican community forests was carried out by
applying the SES meta-analysis method.

2.2 The development of the IAD and SES frameworks in the perspective of scientific
progress of P. Kitcher
The problem of CPRs like the community forests is inherently a complex problem. To get accurate
solutions to this problem, it is necessary to understand those processes that lead to resource
improvement or destruction (Ostrom, 2009). The accurate way to understand them is by modelling
frameworks (Adamsen II, 2000). In this context, it is necessary to identify how IAD and SES
frameworks as tools of analysis of E. Ostrom were emerged and developed addressing the
complexity problem of the CPRs. To achieve this, the perspective of scientific progress of P.
Kitcher (1993) is used. This method helps to evaluate the scientific progress of the IAD and SES
frameworks in terms of conceptual progress, explicative progress, erotetic progress, practical
progress, cognitive progress, and organizational progress. As far as the development and use of
the IAD and SES framework are concerned, these types of progress are interrelated each other.
That is why to provide a best method to evaluate why the IAD framework transited to SES
framework, and how this transit was hand in hand to solve the complexity problem related to the
CPRs management.

27
 • Conceptual progressiveness perspective
Conceptual progress (AP) is made when there is adjustment of the boundaries of categories to
conform to kinds and when it can provide more adequate specifications of theoretical referents.
Conceptual progress should be assessed in terms of proximity to the ideal state. One of the goals
of science is the construction of a language in which the expressions refer to the genuine kinds and
in which descriptive specifications of the referents of tokens can be given. For such a language,
the three maxims (conformity, naturalism, and clarity) are in concord.
Conceptual progress is applied as follows:
A practice P2 is conceptually progressive with respect to a practice Pl just in case there is a set C2
of expressions in the language of P2 and a set C1 of expressions in the language of P1 such that (a)
except for the expressions in these sets, all expressions that occur in either language occur in both
languages with a common reference potential.
(b) for any expression e in C1, if there is a kind to which some token of e refers, then there is an
expression e* in C2 which has tokens referring to that kind.
(c) for any e, e*, [as in (b)], the reference potential of e* refines the reference potential of e, either
by adding a description that picks out the pertinent kind of by abandoning a mode of reference
determination belonging to the reference potential of e that failed to pick out the pertinent kind.
As far as the development and transition of IAD framework to SES framework are concerned, the
analysis of this process in terms of the conceptual progress is important because it helps to identify
how the elements and variables included into the framework were selected and turned into
universal elements and variables that any theory on the CPRs must include. And how this helps to
solve the complexity problem of the CPRs.
• Explicative progress perspective
Explicative progress consists of improvement of a view of the dependencies of phenomena. It also
consists in improving an account of the structure of nature, an account embodied in the schemata
of practices. Improving means to achieve better conception. What does 'better' mean here? One
answer, the response of robust realism, is to declare that there is an objective order of dependency
in nature. Improvement consists either in matching schemata to the mind-independent ordering of
phenomena (the robust realist version) or in producing schemata that are better able to meet some
criterion of organization. Explicative progress is expressed in patterns such as:

28
(EP) P2 is explanatorily progressive with respect to P1 just in case the explicative schemata of P2
agrees with the explicative schemata of P1 except in one or more cases of one or more of the
following kinds.
(a) P2 contains a correct schema that does not occur in P1.
(b) P1 contains an incorrect schema that does not occur in P2.
(c) P2 contains a more complete version of a schema that occurs in P1.
(d) P2 contains a schema that correctly extends a schema of Pl.
From the above methods, a researcher can identify if a schema is more complete or no, and how it
has been developed.
One schema is more complete than another just in case the former identifies a more
inclusive set of relevant entities and properties or the former is correct for a more inclusive
class of dependent phenomena.
One schema extends another if and only if a schematic premise of the latter is derived from
the former. The extension is correct if the properties attributed to the entities in instances
of the conclusion depend on the entities and properties referred to in the corresponding
instances of the premises.
As far as the development and transition of IAD framework to SES framework are concerned, the
explicative progress perspective helps to identify how the general relationships among the
elements and variables were designed and how this helps to understand the processes that lead to
success or failure of the CPRs management.

• Erotetic progress
There is erotetic progress in the development process and the transition of the IAD framework to
the SES framework when this process helped to respond to the significant questions. Once we have
significant questions at our disposal about how far IAD and SES frameworks have been
instantiated, it is relatively helpful to understand their progressiveness with respect to the success
in CPRs governance. However, to be able to answer the significance of presupposition and applied
questions, we need to evaluate how IAD and SES frameworks were used as instruments and
experimental techniques to solve the problem related to the CPRs. In this case, the practical
progress is realized. Though, analysis based on application and suppositional significance
questions answered by instrumental and experimental techniques used by E. Ostrom, responds

29
correctly to the objective of the identification of the progress and transition of IAD framework to
SES framework.
• Practical progress
There is practical progress when the IAD and SES frameworks were used as instruments or
techniques to solve significant questions. According to P. Kitcher, “Instruments and experimental
techniques are valued because they enable us to answer significant questions. One instrument (or
technique) may do everything another does and more. If so, then we make instrumental (or
experimental) progress by adopting a practice in which the former instrument (technique) replaces
the latter. Making this conception of progress precise requires to look more carefully at progress
in the set of accepted statement like “if we know what counts as improving the set of accepted
statements, then we can characterize instrumental and experimental progress by recognizing the
increased power of instruments and techniques to deliver improved statements” (Kitcher, 1993).
In this context, the practical progress perspective helps to identify why the IAD framework had to
transit to SES framework, and how this transition fashioned these frameworks as instruments to
solve the problem of the complexity of the CPRs like the community forests.
• Cognitive progress
According to P. Kitcher, “A significant statement is a potential answer to a significant question.
What we strive for, when we can get them, are true significant statements, that is, true answers to
significant questions.” Sometimes, and with differing frequencies in different sciences, those
statements are universal generalizations. However, there are important fields of science in which
exceptionalness generalizations are not sought. Nevertheless, the statement is both significant and
true. It is significant because it answers the significant question, it is true because counter-instances
such as the one mentioned fall outside its intended scope. Thus, significant instruments and
experimental techniques enable to make progress in the statements we accept” (Kitcher, 1993).
The progress made with respect to the set of accepted statements is identified by valuing how E.
Ostrom progressively eliminates falsehood in favor of truth, or abandon the insignificant and add
significant truths, or reconceptualize already accepted truths. And further see how the statements
from the truth have been replaced with those that are closer to the truth. In this work, it is identified
how the transition of IAD framework to SES framework was in the context of being able to answer
significant questions and trying to close to the truth by solving the problem of the complexity of
the CPRs.

30
 • Organizational progress
There is organizational progress when there is improvement of the accepted relations among the
sciences, by extending the view of consensus practice, of conceptual, explanatory, and erotetic
progresses. The IAD and SES frameworks relate the sciences such as political science, economic
science, law, sociology, and ecology. The organizational progress helps to identify how IAD and
SES as meta-theoretical frameworks contributed to the process of solving the complexity problem
of the CPRs. As far as the analysis context is concerned, the above types of scientific progress are
interrelated. The conceptual progress identifies how progressively the IAD and SES frameworks
were built through a process of combination and recombination of different parts, the explicative
progress deals with determining congruent interactions among those parts, the erotetic progress
analyzes how the building of these frameworks was motivated by responding to significant
questions, the practical progress identifies how far these frameworks were instrumentally used to
solve significant questions. Since the IAD and SES frameworks are accepted as instruments or
techniques, the cognitive progress identifies how their development has been closed to the truth,
and then finally the organizational progress measures how IAD and SES frameworks progressively
become meta-theoretical frameworks. This view of analysis provides an increasing context of
acceptance of the IAD and SES frameworks as tools of determining and understanding the
complexity embedded into the governance of the complex CPRs.
However, as far as the IAD framework was developed and transited to SES framework, the
development of these frameworks was marked by a critical process of transition in a meta-
approach13 and methodological complexity which need explanations by using the analysis of the
case studies as they were fields of study of the E. Ostrom.

2.3 E. Ostrom method of case studies

The case study method deals with research on individual cases to draw insights about causal
relationships in a broader population of cases. In this context, this method like the IAD and SES
frameworks consist of the meta-approach method for the complex problems. The case study
method is important because: i) it offers opportunities to develop concepts and theory, to identify
the limits of general relationships and to disprove deterministic hypotheses, to control for
confounding effects through case comparisons, and to disentangle causal processes, ii) it is especial

13
This refer to a high level of transversality of the transition of the IAD framework to SES work.

31
method of research of complex processes, and iii) it is the only option for empirical field-based
research when cross-case data are not readily available (Ostrom, et al., 2012). Thus, based on the
important of the method of the case study, we can say that it is suitable to this research.

The typical examples of the method of case study are in E. Ostrom, 1990 where by carrying out a
research on individual case studies trying to identify the attributes of successful and failed cases
governed by local communities, she came up with 8 design principles to successfully govern CPRs
(Ostrom, 1990). The successful cases contain at least 6 out 8 principles (Ostrom, 1997), which
imply a direct relationship between the successful conditions and the design principles. These
design principles are also supported into robust SES (Anderies, et al., 2004). Other examples are
in the E. Ostrom, et al., 1994, where the importance of institutional design among the cases is
given. Thus, the use of the case studies is one of the foundation pillar in the E. Ostrom program,
and that is why it was adopted in this work to evaluate how far it was helped to understand the
complexity problem of the CPRs management.

The empirical analysis of this research consists of analysis of 32 case studies of the community
forests in Mexico for a period of 2000 to 2016. The data form these cases are codified according
to the SESMAD method and analyzed by using meta-analysis techniques, within the objective of
identifying variables whose underlying best patterns of interactions explain success or failure
situations of the management of the community forests as complex SES systems.

2.4 The case-based Meta-Analysis method

According to E. Ostrom, the study based on the case studies consists of compilation and synthetic
analysis of existing studies and this method requires tools like IAD framework in case of small
ecological cases and SES framework for large social-ecological, all in all to get common
understanding on components of study object for being able to carry out institution analysis for
self-governance of CPRs (Ostrom, et al., 2012). This analysis presumes the specificity of each case
study and focuses on variables found to be important in explaining outcomes on small-scale
systems that can be scaled up to explain outcomes in large-scale environmental governance
(Ostrom, Janseen, & Poteete, 2012; and Cox, 2014). The new insights got from the use of case-
based Meta-Analysis in this context, highly help in policy analysis (Bergh, et al., 1997). The use
of the case studies’ method in this work is highly important because it shares the meta-approach

32
characteristic with the motive of transition of the IAD framework to SES framework for solving
the complexity problem related to the CPRs management (Ibidem).

The realization of the case-based Meta-Analysis requires a series of steps like those of any
empirical research. They are the formulization of the problem statement, definition of the inclusion
criteria and research of the case studies, codification of the characteristics of the studies that can
moderate the results, analysis and interpretation of the collected data, and publication of the results.
This process is referred to as the vertical orientation of the meta-analysis by Bergh, et al., 1997
and this consists of methodological analysis of the meta-analysis. To be able to carry out the study
of Mexican community forests case studies in this research, the meta-analysis techniques classified
into meta-multicriteria14 analysis and conventional statistical methods were used.

SESMAD method and its corresponding techniques

The SESMAD is preferred in this work because of two reasons: firstly, the SESMAD entails the
development of tools and an approach of the SESs management and more it is of scientific results
which are a continuation of the E. Ostrom SES development15, and secondly, the collection of case
studies represents a consistently operationalized set of variables. The variables are enough
detailed, typified and clearly classified in accordance with the SES framework concept. While
other sets have employed a common framework, they have not consistently operationalized the
variables within such a framework, this is usually left up to the authors of the individual studies
(SESMAD, 2014). This severely limits the comparability of such studies, in the sense that
conceptual validity is too low to enable inter-case comparison to produce a better understanding
of the importance of specific variables across case studies.

In this context, the case study research permits to identify those variables whose interactions and
patterns of interactions contribute to the sustainability or destruction of the whole system (Bergh,
et al., 1997). While the study based on case studies has successfully contributed to the study of

14
The meta-multicriteria used here are the SESMAD method and the SES framework
15
The SESMAD is highly related to the analytical evaluation of the transition of the IAD framework to the SES
framework because it is an internationally collaborative meta-analysis project that builds on previous seminally
synthetic work on small-scale common-pool resource systems conducted at the Workshop in Political Theory and
Policy Analysis at Indiana University. It development was guided by the research question of if the variables found to
be important in explaining outcomes on small-scale systems can be scaled up to explain outcomes in large-scale
environmental governance (SESMAD, 2014).

33
small-scale CPRs, similarly synthetic analyses of larger systems have mostly been lacking. Thus,
SESMAD as a new meta-analysis research project oriented towards large-scale systems provides
a collection set of case studies that consistently operationalizes the same set of variables. While
other sets have employed a common framework, they have not consistently operationalized the
variables within such a framework, leaving that up to the authors of the individual studies. The
SESMAD method was used as to:

i) Definition of the inclusion criteria and research of the case studies

The case studies were selected based on published papers on the community forests in Mexico.
The national and international journals and databases were consulted to get enough information.
Thus, the first sample of 31 cases was got by July 2014, and its final revision was in September
2016 to adjust the changes made during 2 years’ period. The review concluded with 32 case studies
which makes the sample of this research. It is necessary to note that the two serious limitations of
the small samples which are selection bias and indeterminacy16, are not presented here because
almost all publications at that time were considered.
ii) To select the variables to be used in case-based Meta-Analysis
To select variables to be included for sampling analysis, an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
method was used. It uses pairwise comparison and it helps to model complex decision problems
(Brunelli, 2015; Bhushan & Rai, 2004), and the only criteria for this technique is to base on
theoretical importance of each variable and to evaluate its priority on how it impacts the
achievement of the 8 principles of the successful governance of the commons. According to
Brunelli, 2015, this method consists of three steps:

Problem structuring and definition of the hierarchy. This involves the definition of the
objective. The objective in this work is to select the variables which best help to achieve
the successful of the governance of the community forests, provided that they are attributes
of 8 design principles for the successful governance of the commons. This means that the
8 principles were considered as criteria to select 60 variables out of 172 variables. To be
able to select those variables, a scale ranging from 9 to 1/9 was used. 9 means that one
criterion is extremely important than another and the inverse is expressed by 1/9, 7 means
that one criterion is very strongly important than another and the inverse is expressed by

16
A lack of data affects more the accuracy of the results in small samples than in large samples

34
 1/7, 5 means that a criterion is strongly important than another and the inverse is expressed
by 1/5, 3 means that a criterion is moderate strongly important than another criterion and
the inverse is expressed by 1/3, 1 means that both criteria are equally important.
Elicitation of pairwise comparisons. This consists of calculating of the ratios in order to be
able to carry out a comparison for example of 172 variables of this work.
Derivation of priority vectors and their linear combinations. This consists of evaluating the
alternatives in order to choose the variables which most represent the objective settled. In
this work, 60 variables were chosen as the most representative of the governance of the
community forests.
The basis on the 8 principles for the selection of more important variables to be used in the case
study research results to detailed reflections of the design principles of the 172 variables of SES.
The design principles have been a good starting point for the development of a mechanism for
SESs governance (Anderies, et al., 2004). To base on 8 design principles provides a synthetic loop
of the performance of each of 172 variables to successful governance of the community forests.
The objective of this selection is to choose the variables whose presumed performance is highly
ranked. Because not all 172 variables have impact on the successful or unsuccessful conditions of
the community forests (SESMAD, 2014). The variables selected for this research are 60
variables17 out of 172 variables included in the Social-Ecological System Meta-Analysis Database.

The variables selected to be included in this research work are classified as: variable type, variable
component type, variable kind, and theme concerned by each variable. This classification as it is
given in the below table and helps to code data from the case studies, to analyze them and to
recorder them in form of E. Ostrom SES framework.

17
These variables can be found in annex 1.

35
Table 1:Variable classification

variables
Variable data
type Variable component Variable attachment Theme
Environmental Common,
Natural Resource System, and 10 Case Component Outcomes
Binary 8 Natural Resource Units 18 10
Categorical 14 Governance System 12 Component Interaction 42 Institutions 16
Interval 2 Actors 38 Incentives 9
Ordinal 34 Social Capital 5
Text 2 Basic 3
Biophysical 1
Context 2
Spatial 2
Enforcement 7
External 1
Heterogeneity 1
Leadership 3
Source: Own design according to SESMAD, 2014

According to the above table, the variables are classified as:

Variable type. The types of variables are: binary, categorical, interval, ordinal, and text.
As it is seen in the below table, most of these variables are ordinal variables and this makes
easy to determine categorical data of variable from the case studies, and these data are
advantageous in both quantitative and qualitative analysis.

Table 2:Variable type description

Variable type Number Characteristics

Binary 8 Categorical data
Categorical 14 Categorical data
Interval 2 Spatial extent
Ordinal 34 Categorical data
These are governance system description
Text 2 and governance system spatial extent
Source: Own design according to SESMAD, 2014

The SES state results from the configuration of variables in their respective components of
subsystems, and to identify each variable performance as input of the SES subsystems, it is

36
necessary to assign quantitative or qualitative measures to each variable. Hence, in a sample of 32
case studies in this work, most of variables are characterized as categorical, i.e, quantitative as well
as qualitative analysis are possible to determine those variables whose patterns of interactions best
explain the success or failure situations across the case studies.

Variable component type. The variables are classified into the components such as natural
resource system18, actors, and governance system. The variables are distributed into these
components as follows:

Figure 1: Variable components

17%

Natural Resource System

Governance System
20%
63% Actors

Source: Own design according to SESMAD, 2014

From the above figure, 63% of variables is in the components of actors, 20% is in governance
system component, 17% is in natural resource system component. This shows that actors’ weights
are the most influencing in this analysis. However, not all variables directly interact to affect
outcomes, this difference is given by attached components of variables.

Variable attached component. The variables are attached to either case component or
interaction component, and they are distributed as follows:

18
This includes also environmental common and natural resource unit.

37
Figure 2: Variable attachment

Case Component Component Interaction

30%

70%

Source: Own design according to SESMAD, 2014

According to the above figure, variables representing the interactions are 70% of total variables
and 30% are for the case component. This means that the high viability and reliability on the
information got from analysis and the existence of diversity in the outcomes result in various
possible patterns of interactions. As, one of the objective of this research is to identify how a set
of variables affect the outcomes through the patterns of interactions, the figure 3 below shows the
inclusion of the variables to the outcomes.

Theme variables: According to below figure, the variables used in this research present
the themes of spatial, outcomes, institutions, context, enforcement, incentives,
heterogeneity, basic, external, leadership, social capital, biophysical. In this research the
concern is the outcomes which is presented by 17% of the variables.

38
Figure 3: Theme variables

Outcomes Institutions Incentives Social Capital

Basic Biophysical Context Spatial
Enforcement External Heterogeneity Leadership

5%
2%2% 17%

11%

3%

3%
2%
27%
5%

8%

15%

Source: Own design according to SESMAD, 2014

In summary, the variable description shows how a set of the variables used in this research are
distributed into three components of the SES framework. The variables are distributed in their
respective component i.e Actors, Governance system or Natural resource system, and more some
of them make part of interactions and outcomes.
iii) Data collection, codification, and presentation
The collection of the data for empirical analysis was done from 32 case studies of the community
forests in Mexico by codifying data for a set of 60 variables. The data codification was done in
consideration the literature review, the hypotheses, objectives and the research questions. The
presentation of the variables and their corresponding coded performance is done by using tables
and graphs. The most used table is a table in a format of E. Ostrom, 2007 & 2009, by which the
interactions of a set of the second variables to affect the outcomes is given. This format is as
follows:

39
Table 3: Variable components in the form of E. Ostrom SES framework

Social, Economic, and Political Settings (S)

Natural Resource System (RS) Governance System (GS)
Variables Attachment Theme Variables Attachment Theme
Governance strictness
Interaction Outcomes Interaction Institutions
Biodiversity trend trend
Commons condition Governance system
Interaction Outcomes Interaction Outcomes
trend effect
Provision services Social
Interaction Outcomes Interaction
condition Inter-group trust Capital
Regulating services
Interaction Outcomes
condition Users (U)
Actor adaptive
Interaction Outcomes
capacity
Actor group boundary
Interaction Institutions
clarity
Actor group boundary
Interaction Institutions
fuzziness
Case Social
Actor group trust Component Capital
Collective action Interaction Outcomes
Commons boundary
Interaction Institutions
negotiability
Commons feedback
Interaction Incentives
visibility fix
Commons feedback
Interaction Incentives
visibility use
Commons political
Interaction Context
power
Community Case Social
Participation Component Capital
User group well-being
Interaction Outcomes
change
Interactions (I) Outcomes (O)
Actor adaptive Actor adaptive Component
Actor Outcomes Actor
capacity capacity Interaction
Natural
Component
Actor group Actor Institutions Resource
Interaction
boundary clarity Biodiversity trend System
Actor group Component
Actor Institutions Actor
boundary fuzziness Collective action Interaction
Natural Resource Commons condition Environmental Component
Outcomes
Biodiversity trend System trend Common Interaction
Governance system Governance Component
Actor Outcomes
Collective action effect System Interaction
Natural
Resource Unit,
Component
Actor Institutions Natural
Interaction
Commons boundary Provision services Resource
negotiability condition System
Commons condition Environmental Regulating services Natural Component
Outcomes
trend Common condition Resource Unit, Interaction

40
 Natural
Resource
System
Commons feedback User group well-being Component
Actor Incentives Actor
visibility fix change Interaction
Commons feedback
Actor Incentives
visibility use
Commons political
Actor Context
power
Governance Governance
Institutions
strictness trend System
Governance system Governance
Outcomes
effect System
Governance Social
Inter-group trust System Capital
Natural Resource
Provision services Unit, Natural Outcomes
condition Resource System
Natural Resource
Regulating services Unit, Natural Outcomes
condition Resource System
User group well-
Actor Outcomes
being change
Related Ecosystems (ECO)
Source: Own design based on E. Ostrom, 2007& 2009

In the above SES framework table, first column contains variables used in the analysis of this
work, a second and third columns shows variable attachment component and the third column is
for theme of each variable. In the part of interactions, a second and third columns show variable
component and theme of each variable respectively, and in the part of outcomes, a second and
third columns show variable component and variable kind respectively.

The course of identifying the variable interactions and patterns of interactions is in the process of
conceptualization of action situation where one can think of actors interacting in action situations
generating interactions and outcomes that are affected by and affect a resource system, resource
units, governance system, which then affect and are affected by social, economic, and political
settings and related ecosystems. In this context, community forests are conceptualized as complex
SESs where the greater is the whole system that the sum of its parts. To understand their
complexity problem, it is necessary to identify the variables which best represent the underlying
patterns of interactions that lead to successful or unsuccessful situations because, the variables
with common impacts or homogeneous behavior imply less complexity (Niazi & Hussain, 2013).
To identify the variables which best represent the underlying patterns of interactions, the meta-
analysis techniques (Koricheva, et al., 2013) and the multiple correspondence analysis
41
(McCormick, et al., 2017), were used. These two methods are maintained in the analysis of the
collected data.

2.5.2 Conventional statistical methods

The statistical methods were used for the data analysis. These include variables frequencies,
descriptive statistics such as mean descriptions (Srivastava, et al., 2005), standard deviation,
standardized mean difference (Borenstein, et al., 2009), were used to: i) determine each variable
performance in the case studies, ii) to apprehend common elements in different studies, and iii)
trace the variables whose interactions are responsible for differing results across similar studies
(Cumming, 2012). The data analysis is supported by the results of the multiple correspondence
analysis method and the data presentation in the form of the E. Ostrom, 2007 SES framework.

i) The determination of each variable performance in the case studies

The determination of the variable performance in the case studies was done through the variable
codification according to the SESMAD method. Based on this method, two types of variable
performance classification have been identified. These are identified19 variables and unidentified20
variables. The former classification makes part of further analysis to determine each variable
performance effect within the case studies.

ii) The apprehension of common elements in different studies

Since the variable performance among the case studies is determined, the next step is to determine
the effect of each variable performance. Though the application of the means and variance for each
variable performance, the variables whose common elements among the case studies and variables
whose elements vary from a case study to another are identified. The later class of variables is the
one which is applied to further analysis to identify those variables whose interactions and patterns
of interactions explain the successful or unsuccessful conditions of the case studies.

iii) To trace the variables interactions and patterns of the interactions

The identification of the variables whose elements vary from a case study to another helps to
identify variable interactions and patterns of interactions which explain the successful or

19
The identified variables are those variables whose data are identified and coded from the case studies published
information.
20
The unidentified variables are those variables whose data are missed at all in the case studies published information.

42
unsuccessful conditions of the case studies. This is done by calculating the mean effect sizes of
the variable performances among the case studies (Borenstein, et al., 2009), and the
Comprehensive Meta-Analysis program was applied (Pigott, 2012). After identifying the variables
whose effect sizes are highly significates to explain the success of the case studies, a comparative
study of these variables among the case studies is made to determine how their interactions may
lead to successful or unsuccessful conditions.

Thus, the use of the SESMAD, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) based on the 8 principles of
E. Ostrom for the successful governance of the CPRs, and statistical convention methods permitted
to achieve to methodological process that can be summarized by the following flow chart in the
below figure.

Figure 4: Variable selection process from SESMAD

SESMAD with a total of

172 variables

Applied AHP based on the

8 E. Ostrom’s principles

Selected 60 variables

10 constant variables 50 variables with variance ≥ 0

across the case studies

Source: Own design based on the SESMAD, 2014

43
In summary, the methodology of this research work is composed of theoretical analysis and
empirical analysis. The former consists of analysis of how development and transition from the
IAD framework to SES framework were while solving the problem of the complexity embedded
into the CPRs management. To be able to carry out this analysis the P. Kitcher, 1993 perspective
of the scientific progress was applied. This goes hand in hand with achieving the objectives such
as: i) why and how the emergence and development of the IAD framework was in the purpose of
solving the complex problem related to the CPRs management, and why it was necessary to transit
it to SES framework, and ii) how IAD and SES contributed to solve the complex problem related
to the CPRs management. The empirical analysis was done by applying a method of the case-
based research. This consists of proving that the transition from IAD framework to SES framework
is in the direction of constructing a meta-approach which responds to the shortcomings of the IAD
framework while solving the complex problem of the CPRs management. To build on the IAD
framework, SES framework and the case study method provide a constructed methodological
framework to study the complex problem of the CPRs management which avoid the
methodological complexity, and due to all these efforts, it is identified that, to solve the complex
problem related to the CPRs management, a complex system approach is necessary.

44
Chapter 3. The complexity problem of the CPRs and the IAD
framework
3.1 Introduction
This chapter has the objective of identifying how IAD framework was developed solving the
complex problem of the CPRs, and why it was transited to SES framework. To achieve this
objective, the questions such as: i) why the problem of the CPRs management is a complexity
problem? ii) how did the development of IAD framework help to solve complexity problem of the
CPRs? and iii) why was the IAD framework transited to SES framework? are answered. This
chapter is organized into two main sections: the first one is the complexity of the CPR problem,
where E. Ostrom, 1990; 1994; and 2005 texts were focused on. The second one is the development
of IAD framework to SES framework and the complexity problem of the CPRs, where Kisser &
Ostrom, 1982; Ostrom, 1985; Ostrom, 1990; Ostrom, et al., 1994; Ostrom & Polski, 1999; and
2005 were focused on21.

3.2 The complexity problem of the CPRs

3.2.1 Introduction
The problem of the CPRs management is inherently complex and it does not deserve simple
solutions as it was in the case of theories influenced by the model of G. Hardin, 1968 and the logic
of the collective action by M. Olson, 1965. The complexity problem of the CPRs may be
attributable either to the nature of the resources or the action situation in which incentives and
actions towards the resource use are realized or both. The objective of this part is to determine how
the problem of CPRs is inherently a complex problem and how the E. Ostrom program dealt with
this problem.

21
These texts are focused on because they contain the important descriptive information about the IAD development.
They mark important historical periods of the IAD development. For example, the text of Kisser & Ostrom, 1982 is
the first publication of the IAD framework (Ostrom, 1985; 2010; 2011). The text of Ostrom, 1990 describe the problem
of the CPRs and how should be solved through collective action facilitated by institutional settings which raises the
importance of the case studies and the need of the IAD framework. The text of Ostrom, et al., 1994 describes the
complete IAD framework, its theory foundations and its applications. The text of Ostrom & Polski, 1999 describes
the IAD framework as a tool of a policy analysis. Finally, the text of Ostrom 2005 is a recuperation of the IAD
development as a tool of academic researches as well as the policy analysts, and its main contribution is to identify
how the complex institutional settings affect the collective actions as well as its outcomes.

45
3.2.2 The complexity of the CPRs
Many CPRs present complex environments for anyone to understand (Ostrom, 2010). This means
that unless the CPR users understand the functionality and the processes that lead to the successful
or unsuccessful situations, the resource system always ends up destructed (Ostrom, 2009). For
example, besides of the issues related to the nonexclusion and substractability attributes which are
the source of the social dilemma concerning the management of the CPRs, a CPR system may be
very accessible because they are big in size and that there are unknown physical boundaries and
regulating services to determine the appropriators as well as their rights towards the resource use.
This situation generates negative incentives and actions within situation action towards which
leads to the resource destruction. Another example is that there are CPRs which are locally owned
and their benefits are global (Levin, 1999). These resources always present the appropriation22 and
provision23 problems. This is the case of the community forests where apart from the local benefits
like timber production and other related social and cultural services are locally benefited, they
present important global benefits. Hence, the management needs to adopt multilevel approach to
understand those processes that lead to success or destruction situations (Moran, et al., 2002). The
complex environment of CPRs like the community forests produces complex problems which do

22
These are problems related to the ownership rights. The CPRs are owned by the communities thus, they present the
issues of the exclusion of potential beneficiaries and allocation of substractable flows. Not all CPRs present at these
problems at same degree, all depends on situation action of each case and the extent of the property rights. Taking
the case of the community forests, the inputs are the forest areas appropriated by the communities according to the
geographical boundaries, i.e local or regional boundaries and most of the forests of this nature are natural resources
which have not only the local or national benefits but also global benefits, and nowadays are deforested due to different
causes which call for some measures for; the reverse the loss of forest cover worldwide, enhance forest-based
economic, social and environmental benefits, increase significantly the area of protected forests, and to reverse the
decline in official development assistance for sustainable forest management, in order to maintain or generate an
increase of the yield form the use of the forest. The CPRs property rights are a bundle of rights composed of five basic
rights and are hold by the participants in collective action depending on if they are either; owner, proprietor, claimant,
authorized user or authorized entrant, and they can be changed depending on the nature of the resource and property
right regime in place (Ostrom & Hess, 2007). In the absence of the property rights system, the CPR becomes open
access and its management gets into appropriation and provision problems which conduce to the problem of a social
dilemma. To solve this problem, the institution analysis should be done. There are two ways of doing that:
communication and institutional change. This is done all in all to try to solve the problems such as rent dissipation,
high transaction and enforcement costs, and the low productivity which are the subject matter of foundations of the
tragedy of the commons.
23
These are problems related to the production and restoration of the CPRs. The production of these resources requires
determination of relationship between the inputs and yield, i.e trade off costs. However, as the production process
incurs the costs, the problem to the common-pool resources is that no all the resource users are willing to contribute,
which create an issue of the free-riding and this generates provision problems such as, the capacity of creating of the
resource, maintaining or improving of the production capabilities of the resource, and avoiding the destruction of the
resource.

46
not deserve simple solution like those advised by contemporary models influenced by the tragedy
of the commons by G. Hardin, 1968 (Ostrom, 2007). The more complex a resource is, in terms of
the types of goods and services that it provides, the more perverse incentives tend to exist, hence
the users tend to fall into provision and assignment problems which require a deep analysis with a
key element that turns upon the nature of goods and services and their characteristics which pertain
to exclusion and jointness of use. Thus, to provide accurate solutions to complexity problem of the
CPRs, it is necessary to study them through the complexity perspective. It is in this regards that
this research work considers that an ontological approach is necessary which consists of the study
of how development of IAD framework to SES framework helped solving the complexity problem
of the CPRs, and the case study research.

3.3. The IAD framework development to SES framework and the complexity problem
of CPRs
3.3.1 Introduction
The IAD framework was emerged and developed to explain the collective action in complex social
situations. This is the case of its applications in complex public economies of the U.S metropolitan
areas in the decades of 1970s and 1980s, to explain how the complex institutional settings affect
behavior and outcomes of the CPRs management (Ostrom, et al., 2012). This showed how the
development of the IAD framework was hand in hand with solving the problem of complexity.
However, this problem persists particularly in the CPRs management. Thus, this part of this
research work has the objective of identifying how IAD framework was developed to solve the
complex problem of the CPRs, and why it was transited to SES framework. It responds to the
questions of: how did the development of IAD framework help to solve complexity problem of
the CPRs? And, why and how was it transited to SES framework? To respond these questions,
the main two points to focus on this part are: first the IAD framework development and the
complex problem of the CPRs, and second the transition from the IAD framework to SES
framework. To carry out a systematic analysis of the contribution of this framework to solve the
complex problem of the CPRs, the perspective of P. Kitcher, 1993 of scientific progress is used.

3.3.2 The IAD framework development and the complexity of the CPRs
The initial motive of the IAD framework development was to guide empirical analysis of the
provision of public goods in the complex public economies of U.S. metropolitan areas (Ostrom &
Ostrom, 1978). This identifies that the main objective of the IAD framework development was to

47
help understand the complex problem which negatively affect the collective actions. Since the
publication of a first initial statement of the IAD framework (Kisser and Ostrom, 1982), it has got
ameliorations due to empirical and theoretical exercise of performance accepted in its theoretical
foundation as well as a framework. Thus, it has also got substantial progress to solve the complex
problems related to the governance of the commons. Thus, the analysis of IAD framework progress
and its contribution to solve the complex problem of the CPRs starts with its first publication of
1982.

IAD framework in 1982

The IAD framework was known as Institutional Analysis Framework for its first publication, and
its first figure is as in below figure 5. The Institutional Analysis framework was first published as
a meta-theoretical framework for helping to understand the complex set of transformations that
link institutional arrangements to individual behavior to enhance aggregate results that occur in
the real world (Kisser & Ostrom, 1982). The idea was to try to build a framework that facilitates
demonstrations of how institutional arrangements affect individual’s behavior and the outcomes
(Ibidem). This means that its purpose was to study how a set of institutional arrangements affects
the behavior of individuals and the outcomes. To achieve his purpose, a framework was necessary.

It was necessary because, the institutional arrangements are complex composites of rules which
affect the decisions through the institutional change within collective action. The collective action
is negatively affected when the institutional change is misunderstood. This is because the
transformations from rules through common understanding of decision situations to individual
behavior consist of a complex set of transformations (Ibidem). Thus, to be able to analyze and
understand them, an Institutional Analysis framework is necessary.

48
Figure 5: E. Ostrom’s working parts of institutional analysis in 1982

Attributes of
institutional
arrangements Attributes of
decision situation
Actions
Attributes of Aggregated
Activities
events results
And Strategies
Attributes of
individual
Attributes of
the community

The working parts of theoretical explanation The phenomena to be explained

A direct relationship in time period one

Interdependent
A feedback relationship in time period two and subsequently relationships

Interrelationships that have occurred over period history

Source: Kisser & E. Ostrom, 1982

According to the Figure 5, Institutional Analysis framework was initiated and first published with
a concept of describing it into five working parts which are: attributes of institutional
arrangements, attributes of events, and attributes of the community combined to determine the
attributes of the decision situation, and attributes of individual. The first three parts combine and
interact to determine the attributes of the decision situation and then the attributes of the individual.
Then, the interdependent relationship of the attributes of the decision situation and the attributes
of the individual decision maker predict actions, activities and strategies which determine the
aggregated results. The conception of these five working parts and how combined predict the
actions, activities and strategies, and aggregated results to real world, constitute an initial step to
determine how a complexity set of transformations of from institution arrangements to individual
behavior and the aggregated results should be approached.

The explicative aspect is expressed by the interdependent relationships among these five working
parts of institutional analysis which predicts two types of results. The strategies and actions of
individual decision makers, and the aggregation of individual actions into outcomes for the
community. This process of interdependent relationships among five working parts to determine
49
outcomes for the community is a constituent of a complex set of transformations which is difficult
to analyze and understand. Thus, the Institutional Analysis framework as a meta-theoretical
framework which was still at its initial stage, was initiated for understanding this complex set of
transformations.

As it was initiated to address the complexity embedded into the process of transformations from
rules to the outcomes for the community, Institutional Analysis framework was also a result of a
configuration of building blocks into a complex system. Institutional Analysis framework as
complex system, contained also feedback relationships moving from the right side to the left side
which determine the dynamic quality of the framework. In the first instance, aggregated results
affect attributes of the community, attributes of events, and attributes of institutional arrangements,
and in the second instance aggregate results also affect attributes of the individual decision maker.

This indicates that up to 1982, E. Ostrom agreed that attributes of institutional arrangements,
attributes of goods and services, and attributes of the community are determinants of attributes of
the decision situation and impinge on the results and outcomes depending on the information
assessment capacity of decision makers. This means that since the initial stage of the Institutional
Analysis framework was though as an ontological framework to solve those complex problems of
the complex social situations.

As a meta-theoretical framework, it contains an organizational progress by being able to bring

together the theories explaining individual behavior in the institutional structures which are in five
working parts; i) decision maker, ii) the community affected by interdependent decision making,
iii) events (goods and services), iv) institutional arrangements that guide individual decisions, and
v) the decision situation in which individuals make choices. Thus, the figure 5 shows the
relationship between these five working parts, actions and outcomes.

As shown in the below Figure 6, the working parts of institutional analysis are used at related three
levels of analysis namely: operation, collective choice, and constitutional levels. This can be noted
as another conceptual progress about the pre-existing theory on the classification of rules, and the
explicative progress is found in the way these levels interact and affect each other.

50
Figure 6: E. Ostrom’s three levels of institutional analysis in 1982

Constitutional choice level Collective choice level Operational level

Institutional
arrangements

Constitutio
nal choice
Events
situation

Community Symbolic Constitut

ional
action
decisions
Institutional
Individuals arrangements
Collective
choice
situation
Implementation Events
&enforcement Symbo Collective
lic decisions
action Constitutio
nal choice
Community Individuals situation Operation
Distributio
al
decision n of
situations outcomes
Implementation Events
& enforcement
Action
Community
Individuals

Source: E. Ostrom, 1982

Due to the extend use of the five working parts of the institutional analysis in the three levels of
analysis, the typology of institutional rules is drawn and concentrates on the entry and exit
conditions for participating in the organization, allowable actions and outcomes from interactions
within organizations, distribution of authority among positions with organizations, the aggregation
of joint decisions within organizations, procedural rules in complex situations linking decision
situations together, information constraints within organizations. Hence, different rules derive
from this differentiation are: boundary rules, scope rules, position and authority rules, aggregation
rules, procedure rules, and information rules.

From the analysis of the above figures, we can say that E. Ostrom and her fellow researchers have
had the idea of how institutional arrangements, attributes of the events, and attributes of the
community determine individual decisions and impinge indirectly on individual actions and
resulting aggregated outcomes, and they recognized complexity system in which the institutional
arrangements, decision configuration and the realized outcomes take place. That is why it was

51
urgent to think about the framework with the aim of showing how the process of complex set of
transformations is constructed. The Figure 5 of the Institutional Analysis framework resumes this
process into the theoretical explanations of the working parts and the phenomena to be explained
which should be unpacked into single elements and variables in order to understand the complexity
embedded into sets of the transformations of institutional arrangements on individual behaviors to
affect actions and realized outcomes. Thus, much work was remaining to be done to explained
those sets of transformations.

IAD framework in 1985

The concept of the Institutional Analysis framework in 1982 focused on how it helps to understand
the complex set of transformations that links institutional arrangements to individual behavior and
the realized results. However, institutional arrangements are a subject matter of different settings
of social sciences, thus there should be a common understanding on what does it means doing
institutional analysis. Note that the institutional analysis refers to “the examination of how rules,
goods and production technologies, and communities of understanding jointly affect the structure
of situations in which individuals face incentives, adopt strategies of actions, and produce
outcomes for themselves and others” (Ostrom, 1985). Thus, the Institutional Analysis framework
reformulated in 1985 is a result of this empirical and theoretical exercise (Ostrom, 1985). As meta-
theoretical framework, any performance in these social science theories causes a conceptual and
configuration change in the framework. Hence, within three years it was change as in the below
figure.

52
Figure 7: E. Ostrom’s framework for institutional analysis in 1985

FOCAL LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

CONFIGURATION
OF RULES INCENTIVES

AN ACTION ARENA
INDIVIDUAL
GOODS/BADS AND
ACTIONS
PRODUCTION STRUCTURE OF AN
TECHNOLOGIES ACTION SITUATION
AGGREGATE
RESULTS
MODEL OF AN
NATURE OF INDIVIDUAL
COMMUNITY
EVALUATION
OF RESULTS

CONFIGURAL LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

Source: E. Ostrom, 1985

The Institutional Analysis framework in the Figure 7 is different from the one in figure 5 by:
Firstly, it introduces the idea of an “action arena” which is an initial focal unit of analysis and it is
itself composed of an "action situation" and a "model of the individual." It was considered as “a
conceptual unit that helps to analyze, predict, and explain behavior within a wide array of different
institutional arrangements” (Ostrom, 1983). The difference also helps in analysis of CPRs
governance situation as a problem from individuals as actors. The differentiation of the action
arena structure marks both conceptual progress and explicative progress from the first framework.
The conceptual progress of the framework of Kisser & Ostrom, 1982 to the framework of Ostrom,
1985 is given in the following points:
Firstly, the assumptions of the Institutional Analysis framework in Figure 5 are that all five
working parts combined, determine the two types of end results (actions, activities and strategies
at one hand and the aggregated results at another hand). One or two parts are analyzed and others
taken as unchanged (Kisser & Ostrom, 1982). This has an ambiguity of choice in the study of the
effect of these five parts on the predicted results. There is indeterminacy of which part to be
analyzed and which one to be considered unchanged, which one to start with or to end with. In the

53
Figure 7 of the Institutional Analysis of E. Ostrom, 1985, this ambiguity was resolved by
introducing the initial focal unit of analysis called Action arena.
Secondly, still on this point of the Action arena, another point of the conceptual progress is the
determination of the composition parts of the Action arena which are “action situation” and “a
model of the individual”, and their respective variables (Ostrom, 1983; 1985), which stand for
unclear attributes of the decision situation and attributes of individual according to the Institutional
Analysis framework figure of Kisser & Ostrom, 1982.
Thirdly, the conceptual progress is observed by substituting the part of attributes of institutional
arrangements in framework of Kisser & Ostrom, 1982 with configuration of rules in the framework
of Ostrom, 1985. According to Kisser & Ostrom, 1982, the set institutional arrangements affect
the individual behavior as well as the results. This statement does not explain much on the
specifications of rules and how can be used in the course of analysis. The new idea is to cluster
specific types of rules and how they affect the situation action which is a big contribution in the
institutional analysis undertaking (Ostrom, 1983).
Fourfly and finaly, the conceptual progress is observe d by introducing the part of Goods or Bads
and production technologies in the framework of Ostrom, 1985 instead of refering this part with
attributes of events in the framework of Kisser & Ostrom, 1982. This gives the information of how
the needs and production of the common goods affect the colllective action (Ostrom, 1983). There
is an explicative progress because unlike in the framework of Kisser & Ostrom, 1982 which states
that the analysis is done through a conception of a combination of all five working parts where
only one or two are analyzed and others considered as unchanged, the framework of Ostrom, 1985
states that “the framework is not restricted to the analysis of the results at this focal level of
analysis. It also shows how configurations of rules, attributes of goods and of technology and
attributes of community understanding combine to generate specific types of action arenas. When
the action arena is examined as an initial focal unit, the variables within it are viewed as "given"
of a situation. When one examines how rules, goods and technology, and community
understanding affect the structure of an action arena, however, the action arena is examined as an
intermediate unit of analysis” Ostrom, 1985. This clearly shows how the initial focal unit of
analysis “Action arena” depends on the configurations of rules, attributes of goods and of
technology and attributes of community.

54
The fact the framework of Ostrom, 1985 shows a method of institutional analysis composed of
two distinct levels of analysis: (1) the focal level of analysis, i.e the one which addresses how the
structure of a situation and the assumptions made about individual actors, affect the incentives
facing individuals, the types of strategies that individuals adopt, and the consequences produced,
(2) the contextual level of analysis, i.e one addresses how rules, goods and technology, and the
attributes of community understanding produce particular action arenas, marks both conceptual
and explicative progresses. This is total different from the framework of Kisser & Ostrom, 1982,
where a combinatory analysis of five working parts was assumed.
As far as the complex problem of the CPRs is concerned, the IAD framework has been developed
into a complex system to help solving those complex problems related to the CPRs in complex
situation arenas. It has been developed as a genetic type of theory, i.e a small number of essential
building blocks identified in the framework and viewed as being combined and re-combined in
many different configurations, and a single set of analytical variables to construct empirically
testable explanations of the choice of strategies and results achieved in diverse settings of human
life experience (Ostrom, 1985).

IAD framework in 1991

Due to the experience of the Institutional Analysis framework to solve the problems related to the
collective action of the complex social situations, the Panel on Common Property Resource
Management of the NRC of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 1985 recommended the use
of the Institutional Analysis framework to guide empirical analysis of the case studies of the CPRs
(Ostrom, et al., 2012). The Institutional Analysis framework recommended was a conceptual
framework developed by Ronald J. Oakerson (Oakerson, 1984). Since then, the framework got
much attention and helped in constructing the CPRs databases. Consequently, it got more progress
as it shown in the following Figure 8.

55
Figure 8: A framework for Institutional Analysis in 1991

Physical/Material Incentives
Conditions

Action
Attributes of the Patterns of
Situation
community interactions
Model of an
Individual
Rules in use Outcomes

Source: E. Ostrom, R. Gardener & J. Walker, 1991

In comparison with the Figure 7 of the Institutional Analysis framework in 1985, the Institutional
Analysis framework of 1991 got the conceptual, erotetic, practical, cognitive and organizational
progresses.

The conceptual and cognitive progresses are observed in the following points:

• The block of Goods or Bads and production technologies of Institutional Analysis

framework in 1985 is conceived as a physical and material conditions block in the
framework in 1991. As far as the CPRs are concerned, there is a conceptual progress
because the characteristics of that CPRs as natural resources or human made resources with
common property rights are thought about in the framework of 1991 (Gardner, et al., 1987).
The IAD framework expresses “a general concept of Oakerson’s framework of who
decides what in relation to whom” (Ostrom, 1989), whereas, the framework of 1985, the
Goods or Bads and production technology block was highly referring to the state and
mechanisms of the production of Goods for collective use.
• The block of configurational rules of Institutional Analysis framework in 1985 is conceived
as Rules in Use block in the framework in 1991. In this context, the rules in use are those
enforceable rules whose configuration provides a relative efficient use (Ostrom, et al.,
1991). This position bases on the new idea of that only the rules in use or working rules

56
 affect the individual behavior involved in collective action. This effect is not always
produced by the configuration of rules as it is expressed in the framework of 1985.
• The block of individual actions of Institutional Analysis framework in 1985 is changed into
patterns of the interactions block in the framework in 1991. This comes from the idea of
that the physical attributes of the CPR as seen in the above point one combined with
decision-making arrangements governed by the institutional settings produce patterns of
interactions among the resource users which affect the realized outcomes (Oakerson,
1990). This expresses much better the dynamic and complex process within which the
outcomes are realized than in the framework of 1985 where the outcomes result from the
individual actions.

There is erotetic practical, and organizational progresses because since the recommendation of the
R. Oakerson, 1986 Institutional Analysis framework by the Panel of the NRC panel (Ostrom, et
al., 2012), the framework got the attention of various researchers to solve the significant questions,
this for example in Ostrom, 1986; Gardner, et al.,1987; Ostrom, 1989. It also helped in the coding
of the case studes which resulted in the drawing out the design principles for successful governance
of the commons (Ostrom, 1990).

IAD framework in 1994

The support and acceptance of institutional analysis by theoretical settings, empirical results, and
experimental settings, brought to a further development of Institutional Analysis framework, and
this is seen in Ostrom et al., 1994 in which Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD)
framework as known today was used as a tool to demonstrate how models, theories, and framework
are related to each other.

The well-grounded theories supported by models help the IAD framework use to enhance the
predictions and understand individual behavior from institutional change. The models used by E.
Ostrom are models based on the situations of the CPRs in the concept of non-cooperative game
theory, where models of four types of CPR games were developed; i.e provision, assignment,
appropriation, and monitoring, where a simple two-person game, N-person game, and a time-
dependent situation of the game have been developed. Based on the experimental laboratory, the
way variation in rule configurations affects the structure through behavior change and thus change
in predicted outcomes were identified. The theories relevant to the concept of the governance of

57
CPR are non-cooperative game theory, theories of bounded rationality, and microeconomic theory
of perfect competition. Hence based on these three levels are: models24, theories25, and
framework26 of analysis, we can say that the IAD framework of 1994 has got some progress in
compared to its framework of 1991.

Figure 9: E. Ostrom’s institutional analysis in 1994

Physical/material
conditions
Action Arena

Attributes of Action Patterns of

Community Situation interaction
s
Actors
Rules-in-use Outcomes

Evaluative
criteria

Source: E. Ostrom, et al., 1994

The progress of the IAD framework in this period is due to its application in a field setting as a
tool of analysis27. For example, its application to evaluate the impact of the institutions in irrigation
systems where six projects28 were analyzed (Ostrom, 1992). The main purpose of this field settings
is to determine how rules-in-use impinge on real worlds through affecting the patterns of

24
Formal models make explicit assumptions about the elements and structure of a specific situation and use the logical
tools of a theory to derive predictions about the likely outcomes of a set of parameters.
25
Theories are concerned with puzzles that apply to general classes of models. A theory provides a meta-theoretical
language for formulating, postulating, predicting, evaluating and changing various models of that theory.
26
Framework identifies broad working parts and their posited relationships that are used to in an entire approach to a
set of questions. A framework helps to organize diagnostic and prescriptive inquiry.
27
It helps in making institutional comparison and evaluation.
28
The project analyzed are: Indonesia's Luwu Irrigation Project, Indonesia's Rural Works' subproject sites, Sri Lanka's
Mahaweli Irrigation Project, Thailand three irrigation projects.

58
interactions as well as the outcomes. In this context, the practical, cognitive, and organizational
progresses are observed.

Another example which highly contributed to the IAD framework development is its use in the
development of the International Forestry Resources and Institutions research program (Ostrom,
et al., 1993). The use of the IAD framework in the development of IFRI program contributed to:
the erotetic progress by being used to respond to significant questions, practical progress by being
used as an instrument of institutional analysis in the IFRI research program, cognitive progress by
bringing the significant truth in the forest based research, organizational progress by relating the
forests research program to other studies of the commons.

The IAD framework of 1994 presents a conceptual and explicative progresses compared to the
framework of 1991 by introducing the block of Evaluative criteria (Ostrom, 1992). This part is
critical for the feedback of performance of the institutional settings because it allow to evaluate
the outcomes achieved and those that could be achieved (Ostrom, et al., 1994). It is an instrument
for the institutional change decision. Based on the context of the complexity, the IAD framework
is composed of small number of essential building blocks identified in the framework and viewed
as being combined and re-combined in many different configurations, by 1994 the IAD framework
was fully developed and this was influenced by, and influenced important research program like,
Nepal Institutions and Irrigation program (Benjamin, et al., 1994), IFRI program (Ostrom, et al.,
1993). However, the IAD framework progress is not limited to the schemata of the 1994, it has got
further improvement as it is pointed out by E. Ostrom, 2005.

IAD framework refinement

The use of the IAD framework as it was developed until 1994, as a tool of analysis helped in
refining the framework as it represented in the E. Ostrom, 2005. The major contribution to IAD
framework progress by its use to solve complex problem of related to the CPR management is the
recapture of the idea of the its dynamic process. By adapting the IAD framework of E. Ostrom,
Gardner & Walker, 1994, this dynamic process is expressed by:
i) Showing that the evaluative criteria are not only attached to outcomes’ block but also
to patterns of interactions’ block. This marks the conceptual and explicative progresses.
This is shown in the below figure 10.

59
Figure 10: Institutional Analysis and Development Framework in 1999

PHYSICAL/MATER
IAL CONDITIONS ACTION PATTERN OF
ARENA INTERACTIO
ATTRIBUTES OF NS
COMMUNITY Actors
EVALUATIVE
CRITERIA
RULES-IN-USE
OUTCOMES

Source: Ostrom & Polski, 1999

ii) Under the feedback processes and effects of the realized outcomes to the action arena
and exogenous variables. This can be observed in the above IAD framework of E.
Ostrom, 2005. The IAD framework of this kind is also found in Hess & Ostrom, 2004,
where it was used to analyze the complex resource of scholarly communication as
commons.
Figure 11: E. Ostrom’s complete framework for institutional analysis

Exogenous variables

Physical/Material Action arena

Conditions
Action
situation Pattern of
Attributes of Interactions
Community
Evaluative
Criteria
Rules-in-Use
Participants

Outcomes

Source: E. Ostrom, 2005

The above IAD framework has got the conceptual progress compared to the framework of Ostrom
& Polski, 1999 by recognizing that the exogenous variables (Physical and Material conditions,
Attributes of the community, and Rules-in-Use) change over time (Hess & Ostrom, 2004) and this
change affects the patterns of interactions and outcomes through the action situation.

60
It has got the explicative progress because through the feedback loops, it shows how the changes
into the exogenous variables depend on the outcomes realized. This is the case of the institutional
change. This happen when a realization of undesired outcomes can be corrected by institutional
change. This type of progress in this case is also explained by the dependence of the state of the
action situation to the patterns of interactions.

It has got erotetic progress because it helped to solve significant questions (Hess & Ostrom, 2004).
There is practical progress because it was used to analyze the workability of institution analysis
in solving the dilemmas of the information use in a complex scholarly communication. There is
cognitive progress because, the framework introduce a signifcant truth about the dynamic system
of the exogenous variables of the framework which affect the patterns of interactions and the
outcomes through the action situation. There is an organizational progress because it helps to
identifies how the dilemmas of information in the complex social situations like scholarly
communications can be solved in the same ways of the dilemmas related to the CPRs management
(Ibidem) or to solve the samaritan’s dilemma in development aid (GIBSON, et al., 2005).

In summary, we can say that the IAD framework has been developed within the purpose of helping
to solve the complex problem related to social dilemmas of the complex social situations like, for
example, CPRs management. Its development was strengthened by the incorporation of theoretical
settings from different disciplines and support of empirical results to the level that it gained
confidence of the researchers, then of the policy makers. However, even if the IAD framework
played an important role in solving the complex problem related to the CPRs, it has got criticisms
of not paying much attention to ecological systems which caused its transition to SES framework.
the next part explains in details why and how the IAD framework was transited to SES framework.

3.3.3 The transition from IAD framework to SES Framework

The transition from IAD framework to SES framework is marked in three points: i) the use of IAD
framework to solve complexity problem related to the CPRs management, ii) IAD framework
design as an ontological framework to deal with complex situations, and iii) development of IAD
framework in terms of P. Kitcher, 1993, scientific development perspective.

The first point is that IAD framework transited to SES framework because of its limitations to
efficiently and effectively respond to the ecological issues, and larger socio-economic contexts

61
and political settings that affect the situation action and the institutional settings, as well as to the
multiple levels and social–ecological complexity in which CPR management takes place. E.
Ostrom expresses this by saying “The IAD framework is simplified to focus on how institutions
affect action situation leading to interactions and outcomes.” (Ostrom, 2011). This means that the
IAD framework has been primarily interested on how institutional arrangements affect action
arenas which affect the patterns of interactions and the realized outcomes (Ostrom, 2007).
However, the focus on institutions should not be interpreted in a position that rules are always the
most important factor affecting interactions and outcomes. This is for example, besides of focusing
on the role of the institutional arrangements helps to solve social dilemmas of the complex social
situations, the institutional analysts may be more interested in one factor affecting the structure of
arenas than they are interested in others. This is in case, an anthropologists and sociologists tend
to be more interested in how shared or divisive value systems in a community affect the ways
humans organize their relationships with one another, environmentalists tend to focus on various
ways that physical and biological systems interact and create opportunities or constraints on the
situations human beings face, etc.

In addition, the IAD framework transited to the SES framework because of lack of multiple scale
representation. As far as the size of the CPR and multi-levels of governance are concerned, the
serves in the small CPRs without impact of external links of social, economic, and political
settings, and interactions with other resources. In other words, in more complex cases of the SESs
where the purpose is to identify the robustness of the SESs, the IAD framework plays little
important. Hence, the SES framework was developed to deal with analysis of the problems related
the large CPRs linked with social, economic, and political settings, and interactions with other
resources. Thus, there is a need to develop another framework that is also capable to analyze the
problems related to large and complex CPRs.

The second point is that as far as the complex system is concerned, the IAD framework is organized
in building blocks which are in interaction to produce a given outcome. In this context, the IAD
framework is considered as “a genetic type of theory; i.e a small number of essential building
blocks identified in the framework and viewed as being combined and re-combined in many
different configurations, and a single set of analytical variables to construct empirically testable
explanations of the choice of strategies and results achieved in diverse settings of human life

62
experience” (Ostrom, 1985). The rules, the biophysical and material world, and the nature of the
community all jointly affect the types of actions that individuals can take, the benefits and costs of
these actions and potential outcomes, and the likely outcomes achieved. This calls upon further
development of IAD framework to demonstrate also how biophysical conditions and attributes of
the community importantly affect individual behavior, instead of focusing only on the institutional
arrangements and positing the biophysical as a given (Thiel, et al., 2015). This is the same as what
M. D. McGinnis and E. Ostrom says “When applied to resource management issues, the natural
tendency within the IAD framework is to treat the dynamics of a resource system as a mostly
exogenous force, that is, as a driver of changing circumstances and not something directly under
the control of the actors making policy in those settings.” (McGinnis & Ostrom, 2014, p. 3).

The fact that more weight was given to institutional settings causes the IAD framework is highly
concerned with the social issues because even if it deals with the analysis of how rules, biophysical
and material conditions, and attributes of the community affect the structures of the action arenas
(situation action and participants), the incentives of individuals, and the resulting outcomes, the
biophysical and material conditions and the attribute of the community are treated as a given.
Whereas these factors act into dynamic systems. Which means that their status are results of the
patterns of interactions of the variables which change in place and time. Thus, there is a need of
developing another framework which also pays attention to the ecological systems. A framework
that help to unpack ecological system variables that affect the collective action through patterns of
interactions and outcomes.

The third point is that, as far as the IAD progress to solve complex problems related to the CPRs
management is concerned, it is identified that in terms of solving the complex problems related to
ecological systems, the IAD was insufficiently applied in this area. They have been a lack of
erotetic, practical and cognitive progresses of IAD framework to solve SES related problems.
According to Anderies, et al., 2003, there was a problem of the disturbances of the SES which can
be of two sources: external29 and internal30 disturbances. To have a sustained study of SES, E.

29
These refer to biophysical disruptions such as floods, earthquakes, landslides, and climate change, that impact the
resource and the public infrastructure or socioeconomic changes such as population increases, economic change,
depressions or inflations, and major political changes, that have an impact on the resource users and the public
infrastructure providers.
30
These refer to rapid reorganization of the ecological or social system induced by the subsystems of the ecological
or social system.

63
Ostrom bases her research on directive four questions which are closed to ones posed for IAD
framework. These questions are: How do institutional arrangements affect the robustness of SESs?
Why do some systems survive in highly varying environments over time and others collapse?
Which attributes of the institutions are more likely to lead to the creation of robust SESs? How do
these attributes depend on the underlying ecological system? (Anderies, et al., 2004), based on this
methodology, it was realized that SES framework was necessary to complement the IAD
framework contribution. There is a lack of erotetic progress because the IAD framework was not
able to be used to solve the above significant questions, there is a lack of practical progress because
the IAD framework was limited to be an instrument to solve the problems like those given above.
There is a lack of cognitive progress because the IAD framework failed to provide a significant
truth about those types of questions.

To conclude, I can say that the development of the IAD framework played an important role in the
study of institutional arrangements to solve the complex problems related to the CPRs use. It has
been developed into several essential building blocks combined and re-combined in many different
configurations, and a single set of analytical variables to construct empirically testable
explanations of the choice of strategies and results achieved in diverse settings of human life
experience. This helped to understand the complex set of transformations that links institutional
arrangements to individual behavior and aggregated results or outcomes occurring in the real
world. As a meta-theoretical framework, it helped describing the array of elements to be used in
specific theories about institutions rather than presenting a particular theory. Even if it has been
used to solve a milliard of problems, it has got criticism of that it pays much attention to social
issues rather than to ecological issues. This can be identified through the IAD framework tendency
of use, the IAD framework organizational design, and IAD framework development progress.
Thus, to respond to these criticisms, E. Ostrom was pushed to a SES framework. As far as the
process of solving the problems related to the CPRs is concerned, the shift from IAD to SES makes
a scale up from small and less complex CPR systems to large and more complex systems.

64
Chapter 4. The SES framework and the complexity problem of CPRs
4.1. Introduction
The objective of this chapter is to analyze how SES framework was developed responding to the
shortcomings of the IAD framework and the complexity problem related to the CPRs management.
To achieve this objective, the question of how was SES framework developed to deal with the
complexity problem related to the use of CPRs that IAD could not solve, is answered. The chapter
is structured into the following sections: The first section shows the E. Ostrom’s SES framework
and the complexity problem of SESs, where the focus was put on Anderies, Janssen, & Ostrom,
2004; E. Ostrom, 2005 & 2007. These texts are focused on because of their highly importance31 in
describing how SESs are complex, hence the analysis of the problems related to their management
needs another congruent framework rather than IAD framework. The second section shows the
SES framework development and its implication to solve complexity problem related to the SESs
management. In this part, the focus was put on Anderies, Janssen, & Ostrom, 2004; E. Ostrom &
Moran, 2005; E. Ostrom, 2007; 2009; and E.Ostrom & Cox, 2010, Ostrom, et al., 2012. These
texts made important32 descriptions of the SES framework deveolpment and its contributions to
solve the complexity problem of SESs management. The third and last section of this chapter is
about Social-Ecological System Meta-Analysis Database and the case studies, and the E. Ostrom
and Moran, 2005; SESMAD, 2014; E. Ostrom, 2012 are focused on33.

4.2 E. Ostrom’s SES Framework and the complex SESs

As it was identified in the chapter one, the development of the SES framework was in response to
the shortcomings of the IAD framework (Thiel, et al., 2015). The analysis of the development
tendency of the IAD showed that this framework has been originally developed and primarily used
by social scientists to deal with policy analysis of the problems related to the CPRs governance,
however, it pays little attention on the effect of the physical conditions of the resources on the

31
The importance of focusing on the Anderies, Janssen, & Ostrom, 2004; E. Ostrom, 2005 is that they show how the
SESs are complex systems and how to solve the complex problem related to their management, another framework is
necessary rather than IAD framework. the E.Ostrom, 2007 is focused on because it presents initial SES framework as
an analytical method.
32
These texts are important because they show the tendencies of the SES framework development confronting the
SES related complexity problem.
33
These texts are focused on because they show how the SES framework can be applied to a concrete case studies
whose complex problems related to the CPRs management prevent success in policy analysis.

65
action situation and realized outcomes. In addition, the fact that the IAD framework deals with
the analysis of how rules, biophysical and material conditions, and the attributes of the community
affect the structures of action arenas, the incentives that individual face, and the resulting
outcomes, it is compatible with the small CPRs without impact of external links of social,
economic, and political settings, and interactions with other resources (McGinnis & Ostrom,
2014). Thus, due to these shortcomings, the alternative framework was necessary, and since 2003,
E. Ostrom started to develop a framework that is capable to provide a robustness of the SESs.

The SESs are complex systems (E. Ostrom, 2005. Pag 256; 2007; 2012.pag 393). This is because
of the interactions of the social and ecological systems (Wilson, et al., 1998). This can be viewed
into two perspectives: The first perspective is that the ecological system is composed with
ecological resources. These are CPRs characterized by the difficult but not impossible to exclude
potential users and the substractability of resource units, and they are in interactions with other
resource systems at local level and/or global level. Hence, as far as the SESs are complex, unless
there are robust institutions to govern the incentives and actions of the SESs’ users, there should
be a problem of free-ride34 which read to resource system destruction (Anderies, et al., 2003). As
far as free-ride is concerned, the SESs are larger ecological systems used by many people. Their
characteristic as CPRs has a global impact whereas the management is done at local level (Levin,
1999). Since the patterns of interactions are done at local level and the results like resource
destruction is observed at global level, there is difficulty of evaluating the impact of the collective
action on resource sustainability measures, hence the free-ride is frequently possible. In this case,
the robustness of the institutional design is achieved when the impact of the ecological system of
the resources on the action situation is considered, and the IAD framework is criticized of omitting
this analysis. Consequently, there should be a need of a framework that consider the impact of
ecological system assessment on the successful CPRs management. The second perspective which
is related to the first perspective is that social systems are complex. This is in terms of that they

34
According to the traditional economic theory of property rights (H. Scott Gordon, 1954 and Anthony Scott, 1955),
the absence of exclusive and effective rights to the CPRs causes the inability to obtain the profits of the investments
(Anderson and Hill, 1977 & 1998; Demsetz, 1967, Noth and Thomas, 1973) and that common use causes the
parasitism (Mancur Olson, 1965) that cooperation is necessary so that a social dilemma does not arise (Messick and
Wike, 1992) which implies a conflict between Individual rationality and optimal outcomes for a group (Ostrom, et al.,
2012).

66
involve many interrelated action arenas of users and providers of the public infrastructures. Hence,
if there are no robust institutions to regulate the interactions in these action arenas, the outcomes
from the SES use may be undesired. To deal with this issue, the development of SES framework
started with the ambition of studying what makes SESs to be robust. The robustness of SESs can
be evaluated in terms of eight principles35 (Anderies, Janssen, & Ostrom, 2004; E. Ostrom, 2005).
This shows a common ambition of IAD and SES frameworks development. However, as far as the
multiple levels of social settings in interactions with the resources in use which affect the situation
action are concerned, it was proved the insufficient performance of the IAD framework to deal
with complex problems of the social situations of this kind. Hence, the SES framework was
emerged. In these two cases, the main idea is how to provide the sustainability of the ecological
systems of the SESs.

The SES framework enables to organize analyses of how attributes of: (i) the resource system, (ii)
the resource units generated by that system, (iii) the users of that system, and (iv) the governance
system jointly affect and are affected by interactions and the resulting outcomes achieved at a
particular time and place. In this context, the SES framework is a multi-level where each of the
above categories is a system of interrelated variables. The framework also enables to organize how
these attributes may affect and be affected by small or larger socioeconomic, political, and
ecological settings in which they are embedded. The framework was an intent to be a step forward
toward building a strong interdisciplinary science of complex, multilevel systems that enables the
analysis of the complex problems related to the SESs management (Ostrom, 2007). Thus, one can
say that the main purpose of the SES framework development was to build a powerful and complex
framework that supplements the IAD framework to solve more complex problems related to the
SESs management.

Like IAD framework, the E. Ostrom SES framework is a result of research development of a long
period and its continuing development is open to further researches. In the following part, the
development of the SES framework to cope with the complexity problem of the SESs as it is in
relation with its predecessor IAD framework is given. In order to be able to carry out a thorough

35
These principles help to characterize robust institutions for managing CPRs like community forests (Cox, et al.,
2010).

67
of the SES framework development, the P. Kitcher,1999 perspective of the scientific progress is
taken into account.

4.3 The SES framework development and its implications for dealing with complexity
problem of SESs
The development of the SES framework results from the limitations of the IAD framework to
tackle the analysis of the complex problems related to the SESs management (Thiel, et al., 2015).
The beginning of the development of the SES framework was not far from the purpose of the IAD
framework development which was to help analyzing institutional arrangements that affect the
outcomes in CPRs management. The departure point was to respond to the question “what makes
SES robust?”. The stimulus here was to study the factors that contribute to robustness36 of the SES.
To be able to respond to this question, a resort to the institutional configurations that affect the
interactions among resources, resource users, public infrastructure providers, and public
infrastructures and the eight principles of the successful governance of the CPRs was done
(Anderies, et al., 2003). The reference to the institutional arrangements and the underlying design
principles that characterize the robust CPR institutions was in the purpose of addressing the issues
of resources, resources governance system and the infrastructure providers as a combined37
system.

To address these issues the SES framework was proposed. The proposition of the framework
helped to answer secondary questions such as: how do institutional arrangements affect the
robustness of SESs? Why do some systems survive in highly varying environments over time and
others collapse? Which attributes of the institutions are more likely to lead to the creation of robust
SESs? How do these attributes depend on the underlying ecological system? Which all depends
on a state of institutional settings and the resulting outcomes that referred as the governance system
in place.

36 This term is used to refer to human efforts in terms of cost-benefits trade-offs associated with systems designed to
cope with uncertainty. As far as institutional approach is concerned, it would be referred to the governance that
enhances the resilience of the ecosystem to produce desirable bundle of goods and services. As far as SES interactions
are concerned, it refers to the maintenance of some desired system characteristics despite fluctuations in SES parts or
its environment (J.M. Anderies, M. A. Janssen, and E. Ostrom, 2004).
37
A system of interactions of variables with common objectives.

68
As far as the governance system is concerned, the adaptive governance that enhances the
production of the desirable outcomes from the complex SES is referred to (Koontz, et al., 2015).
The governance as a system is in interactions with other components of the SES, where its state
results from the its constituent variables and the interactions with other SES components. The
importance here is to identify how the SES components afford to self-organize and how they
interact to produce desired outcomes. The SES as a self-organized system is because SES is
composed of interactions of ecological systems and social systems, and their link makes that the
SES self-organizing components interact38 into a complex system (Zhao & Wen, 2012). Thus, to
deal with this complexity, it was necessary to develop a SES framework.

As it was seen the transition of the IAD framework to SES framework marked an erotetic, practical
and cognitive progresses because a SES framework is considered as an instrument to answer
significant questions related to the SES management, and provides a significant truth about those
types of questions. From time to time, this framework has got some changes and ameliorations
which marked its development. The analysis the SES framework development is done in the
perspective of P. Kitcher, 1993. This is in the objective of studying how this framework was
developed helping to solve the complex problems related to the SES management.

SES framework in 2003

The first figure of the SES framework is the one of J.M. Anderies, M.A. Janssen & E. Ostrom,
2003. The SES was thought as a system of the resource, resource users, public infrastructure
providers, and public infrastructure. This system is affected by external socio-economic
environment. This means that the robustness of the SES not only depends to the internal
interactions, but also to external influence. The Figure 12 below shows the first conceptual model
of the SES by E. Ostrom, 2003.

38
They affect and be affected by other components.

69
Figure 12: First conceptual model of Social-Ecological System

External Natural & 8

Socio-Economic
Environment
B
Resource Users 2
7
1
C
A 6
5 Public
Resource Infrastructure
Providers
D
4
Public 3
Infrastructure

Source: J.M. Anderies, M.A. Janssen & E. Ostrom, 2003

Since the beginning, SES concept was thought as a complex system, i.e a system decomposed into
parts and their interactions. The first SES conceptual model was decomposed into resource as part
A, directly connected to resource users as part B, who may be or/ and being in relationship with
public infrastructure providers which constitute parts C, the public infrastructure provided for
sustainable management of the resources designed as part D, and finally linked to the external
natural and Socio-Economic Environment expressed as part E. These parts interact each other in a
dynamic process characterized by given outcomes which critical points to determine if SES is
robust or not. The interactions among the SES components are expressed by linkages such as (1)
stands for a linkage between resource and resource users, (2) stands for a linkage between users
and public infrastructure providers, (3) stands for a linkage between public infrastructure providers
and public infrastructure, (4) stands for a linkage between public infrastructure and resource, (5)
stands for a linkage between public infrastructure and resource dynamics, (6) linkage between
resource users and public infrastructure, (7) stands for external forces on resource, (8) stands for
external forces on resource users. This shows that since the beginning, the concept of interactions
of the constituent parts of the SES are the bases of its workability and its robustness. This concept
was ameliorated from time to time.

70
Viewing the above figure 12 of the SES framework in 2003, there is a conceptual progress in
comparison to the IAD framework. This is can be seen in two points: the first point is to
conceptualize the idea that the robustness of the SES depends on direct interactions of the SES
framework components: the resource, resource users, public infrastructure providers, and the
public infrastructure itself as the specific outcome. This conception does not reject the idea of the
IAD framework of situation action because it is supposed that the resource users and the public
infrastructure interact into collective action governed by rules-in-use. However, it is different from
the IAD framework because, the resource component is not an exogenous variable where in the
analysis is taken as given. The second point is the introduction of the external natural and socio-
economic environment effect on the robustness of the SES. This is very important input because,
as far as the complexity problem of the CPRs management is concerned, the most of resources
function into SESs, thus, not only the internal destructive forces affect the robustness of the SES
but also the external forces.

SES framework in 2004

By the year 2004, the concept of SES got a progress of that external forces were divided into two
parts: i) biophysical disruptions (7) and ii) socioeconomic changes (8). As an explicative progress,
the former affects the component of resources and the public infrastructure, and later affect the
resource users and the public infrastructure providers. This can be observed in the above Figure
13.

71
Figure 13: A conceptual model of a social-ecological system

B
Resource Users 2

1
C
A 6
5 Public
Resource Infrastructure
7
Providers 8
D
4
Public 3
Infrastructure

7
Source: Anderies, Janssen & Ostrom, 2004
The SES framework which was still at its initial stage had to address three problems: 1) cooperation
and potential for collective action which must be maintained within the social system, 2) ecological
systems are dynamic, the same are the rules of the games that agents play amongst themselves,
and 3) ecological systems can occupy multiple stable states and move rapidly between them. The
first problem was well covered by IAD framework in the study of the institution arrangements for
CPRs governance. The other two problems are the concern of the SES framework by which the
interactions of component parts of the SES and the resulting outcomes are studied. This marks the
practical and erotetic progress of the SES framework in comparison to the IAD framework.

The Social-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems where social and biophysical agents
are interacting at multiple temporal and spatial scales (Janssen & Ostrom, 2006). In this context,
considering the above SES framework figure, the two of its components are composed of humans:
the resource users and the public infrastructure providers who interact in multiple action arenas,
and public infrastructure combines two forms of human-made capital i.e physical and social. The
SES as a dynamic system of component parts is challenged in two ways; by external disturbances,
and by fluctuations within internal entities and the links between them (Anderies, Janssen &
Ostrom, 2004; Janssen & Ostrom, 2006). A link of social and ecological systems makes SES to be
complex. Not only the interactions of social and ecological systems are in complex system but also

72
in complex adaptive systems where social and biophysical units are interacting at multiple
temporal and spatial scales (Janssen & Ostrom, 2006). Since the SES framework presented here
presents the relevant parts of a social-ecological system and how they are linked, it focuses on
single level of SES, given that SES is composed of complex multi-level components. Worried with
the tendencies of collapsing SES, due to the past efforts of imposing the simple solutions to these
complex problems, E. Ostrom asks herself the question of if to govern complex social-ecological
systems was it impossible.

The response to this question was that it was necessary to build a strong interdisciplinary science
of complex, multilevel systems that would help to respond to the complex problem related to the
SES management (Ostrom, 2007a). This pushed E. Ostrom and her colleagues to dig further more
into the SES framework to search for further means of dealing with the complexity embedded into
the SESs which caused further development of the SES framework as it was established in 2007.

SES framework in 2007

The major concern of the establishment of the SES framework version 2007 was to try to solve
the complexity problem embedded into policy analysis of the SESs without falling into either of
two analytical and policy traps: (1) deriving and recommending policy blueprints or ‘panaceas’;
or (2) asserting ‘my case is unique’. There was a change in the structure of the SES framework in
the objective of understanding the niches involved and how particular solutions help to improve
outcomes or make them worse (Ostrom, 2007). This raised an effort to understand how particular
variables of the SES framework interact and be transformed into outcomes. This lead to further
development of the SES framework.

The further development of the SES framework consists of digging more inside of this framework
to search out those variables whose interactions and patterns of interactions affect the realized
outcomes. This process is built on three aspects of decomposable complex system which are: the
conceptual partitioning of variables into classes and subclasses, the existence of relatively
separable subsystems that are independent of each other in the accomplishment of many functions
and development but eventually affect each other’s performance, and complex systems are greater
than the sum of their parts (Ostrom, 2007). These three aspects reveal the concept of simplification
of complex systems into single set of variables and their interdependent relationships to determine
outcomes to the real world is established. This is the main objective of the SES framework

73
according to E. Ostrom, 2007, which is to determine dependent and interdependent relationship
among a set of variables whose interactions many lead to successful or unsuccessful conditions.

This process is in accordance to the works of other researchers about the complex SESs like S.
Levin, 1999, by whom essential features of complex adaptive systems referred to in describing
autonomous whole and dependent parts of SES variables are given. The features are; diversity and
individuality of components39, localized interactions among the components40, and an autonomous
process41. Thus, to identify the complexity embedded into the SES, the E. Ostrom SES framework
was conceptualized as a general framework and a conceptual map composed of structural
components that are in the concept of tiers and linkages among variables. It contains first and
second tiers. On the first tiers, it comprises three ‘‘first-level core subsystems,’’ namely: (i) a
resource system and resource units, (ii) a governance system, and (iii) users, and they affect each
other as well as linked social, economic, and political settings and related ecosystems. On the
second tiers, there are a set of ‘‘second-level’’ variables that are useful for SES analysis, and which
can be sorted by these core sub-systems, have also been identified. Institutions are part of both
social sub-systems, i.e. the governance systems and users. More specifically, the overall property-

39
It means that SES is a complex system which is decomposable in its structure (Ostrom, 2007). Its decomposability
gives birth variables arranged in levels in an order of system, subsystem and elementary variables of the subsystems.
A degree of complexity of any SES is a result of the diversity of its subparts and their interactions. Thus, a whole
system is greater than the sum of its parts. To survive and to realize a good sustainability, SES function into a
mechanism of interactions that continually refresh diversity. Both social and ecological systems contain units that
interact interdependently. Ecological system means that it is composed of interdependent organisms or units, whereas
social system means that there is a tendency of cooperative and interdependent relationships within the SES.

40
It means that state of SES like community forest is a result of local interactions. Along with tight feedback loops,
the system is tight into sustainable system. Thus, to sustainably evolves, SES needs interactions among its variables
and tight feedback loops.

41
Diagnostically, analysis into SES framework is built on three aspects of decomposable complex system which are:
i) the conceptual partitioning of variables into classes and subclasses, ii) the existence of relatively separable
subsystems that are independent of each other in the accomplishment of many functions and development but
eventually affect each other’s performance and, iii) complex systems are greater than the sum of their parts. Based on
these aspects, SES framework is composed of three ‘‘first-level core subsystems,’’ namely: (i) a resource system and
resource units, (ii) a governance system, and (iii) users, and they affect each other as well as linked social, economic,
and political settings and related ecosystems. These subsystems contain a set of variables which are also set of
‘‘second-level’’ variables of the SES and they constitute a basis in the SES analysis (Ostrom, 2007). As far as a view
of SES in the two faces of opposite directions is concerned, each part of the framework is autonomous agent of the
whole system and though interactions with other variables or parts, dynamically evolves to form changing
configurations in the system.

74
rights system, operational, collective-choice, and constitutional rules are variables of the
governance system, while norms are a variable of the user system. This shows that the IAD
framework concept is not omitted. The following is E. Ostrom framework by 2007.

Figure 14: A Multitier Framework for Analyzing a Social-Ecological System

Social, Economic, and Political Settings (S)

Resource Governance
System System (GS)
(RS)

Interactions (I) Outcomes (O)

Resource Units Actors (A)

(RU)

Direct link Feedback

Related Ecosystems (ECO)

Source: E. Ostrom, 2007

E. Ostrom´s SES framework plays an evaluative role and focusing on action situation for
improving outcomes. As we already saw, this process of transformation of the situation action to
affect outcomes involves a complex set of transformations. Consequently, The SES framework is
a general framework that directs research cumulative, coherent and empirical supported
knowledge and it is designed as decomposable framework where each of its highest-tier conceptual
variables can be unpacked variables on the lower tier and related to other unpacked variables in
testable theories relating the outcomes of human use of the diverse types of SESs (Ostrom, 2007).
In this context, the SES is not only considered as a sum of its parts, but also the interactions among
its parts in dependent phenomena. This helps to tackle emergency of complexity which is a critical
concern in the management of the common pool resource systems (VanWey, et al., 2005). This
effort was made in response of the same concern of the E. Ostrom program of the CPRs

75
management by which some cases the SESs are sustained managed whereas others are not. After
a long period of theoretical research and empirical research based on the case studies, it was
realized that the case studies were not different nor common. Thus, the policy analysts of the CPRs
management should not fall into the traps of considering that the cases are unique or
recommending the simple solutions like the context of policy textbooks influenced by the famous
theory of the tragedy of the commons by G. Hardin (1968) and the logic of collective action by M.
Olson (1965). Though, there should dig more into the SES framework in order to get those
independent variables whose interactions and patterns of interactions successful or unsuccessful
affect the outcomes. Thus, the variables of the second tier were established, and they are shown in
the following Table 4.

Table 4: Second-Tier Variables in Framework for Analyzing SES

Social, Economic, and Political Settings (S)

S1-Economic development. S2-Demographic trends. S3-Political stability.
S4-Government settlement policies. S5-Market availability
Resource System (RS), and Resource units (RU) Governance System (GS)

RS1- Sector (e.g., water, forests, pasture, fish) GS1- Government organizations

RS2- Clarity of system boundaries GS2- Non-government organizations

RS3- Size of resource system GS3- Network structure

RS4- Human-constructed facilities GS4- Property-rights systems

RS5- Productivity of system GS5- Operational rules

RS6- Equilibrium properties GS6- Collective-choice rules

RS7- Predictability of system dynamics GS7- Constitutional rules

RS8- Storage characteristics GS8- Monitoring & sanctioning

RS9- Location processes

RU1- Resource unit mobility

RU2- Growth or replacement rate Users (U)

76
 RU3- Interaction among resource units U1- Number of users
RU4- Economic value U2- Socioeconomic attributes of users
RU5- Size RU3- History of use
RU6- Distinctive markings U4- Location
RU7- Spatial & temporal distribution U5- Leadership/entrepreneurship
U6- Norms/social capital
U7- Knowledge of SES/mental models
U8- Dependence on resource
U9- Technology used
Interactions (I) Outcomes (O)

I1- Harvesting levels of diverse users

I2- Information sharing among users O1- Social performance measures (e.g.,
efficiency, equity, accountability)
I3- Deliberation processes
O2- Ecological performance measures
I4- Conflicts among users (e.g., overharvested, resilience, diversity)
I5- Investment activities O3- Externalities to other SESs
I6- Lobbying activities

Related Ecosystems (ECO)

ECO1-Climate patterns. ECO2-Pollution patterns. ECO3-Flows into and
out of focal SES
Source: E. Ostrom, 2007

According to the above Table 4, the SES framework contains 42 variables whose interactions
affect the outcomes. These variables are applied to any SES and in this work, the variables that
interact and affect the outcomes of the use of community forests in Mexico were selected from
total variables contained into SES framework. This will be discussed later.

The decomposition of SES into subsystems (variables on the first-tier) and variables of the second-
tier is very important in dealing with the problem of the complexity by showing how the variables
interact and form patterns of interactions and the resulted outcomes. This is in the purpose of
determining the complexity of the processes that may lead to improved or undesired outcomes.
Dealing with the complexity of the interactions in relation to the realized outcomes is what relate

77
SES framework to IAD framework and this is done through situation action which need
institutional arrangements to generate desired outcomes. The decomposition of the SES into
independent variables is an important step in solving the complexity problem of the SESs as it
determines the possible combination of a set of variables that can lead to the successful or
unsuccessful conditions.

The development of the SES framework according to E. Ostrom, 2007 has marked an important
scientific progress in terms of: i) conceptual progress by the fact of conceptualizing the SES as
decomposable system into subsystems and independent and interdependent variables that affect
the interactions and the outcomes observed in the empirical studies, and the complexity problem
depends on how far it is difficult to understand the processes of interactions of the SES variables,
ii) explicative progress because the SES is explained as a system of the subsystems and
independent variables, and that its condition depends on the performance of the individual
variables (Rivero & Hakizimana, 2016), iii) cognitive progress because it helps to understand those
processes that lead to successful or unsuccessful conditions (Ostrom, 2009), iv) erotetic progress
in terms of that the decomposability of the SES framework was in response to the serious problem
of panaceas solutions to the complex problem of the SESs, practical progress because as a result
of the SES framework decomposition (Basurto & Ostrom, 2009), and v) Organizational progress
in terms of that the SES framework enables to organize analyses of how attributes of (i) a resource
system like the community forests, (ii) the resource units generated by that system, (iii) the users
of that system, and (iv) the governance system jointly affect and are indirectly affected by
interactions and resulting outcomes achieved at a particular time and place. The SES framework
also enables to organize how these attributes may affect and be affected by larger socioeconomic,
political, and ecological settings in which they are embedded, as well as smaller ones (Ostrom,
2007).

SES framework in 2010

The objectives of the SES framework version 2010 are: i) to show that SES functions as a dynamic
system over time and ii) the inclusion of the action situation as part of the SES framework. The
achievement to these objectives marked the conceptual and explicative progresses of the SES
framework compared to its precedent schema of the 2007. To show that the SES functions into the
dynamic system in terms of Anderies, Janssen & Ostrom, 2004, the SES framework is composed

78
of several primary classes of entities, which are in turn embedded in a social, economic and
political setting, and in related ecosystems. The resource systems, resource units, governance
systems and social systems composed of actors are the primary components of a SES, and a SES
can have multiple instances of each of these primary components.

The inclusion of the action situation into the SES framework is in the context of that SES
framework builds on the IAD framework which is a foundation to analyze how institutions affect
human incentives, actions and outcomes (Ostrom & Cox, 2010), therefore they share behavioral
common objective and it aims to establish a common language for SES, in order to enable
multidisciplinary efforts and assimilation and comparison of findings produced by different
methods (Ostrom, 2007). Thus, later IAD framework was combined with SES framework through
the inclusion of the action situation into a large and powerful framework to deal with those
complex problem of the SESs.

Before including action situation, the SES framework focuses only on how a resource system,
resource units, governance system, and users embedded in larger or smaller social, economic, and
political settings and related ecosystems might affect interactions and outcomes, with the intention
of that interactions and outcomes obviously result from action situations. After realizing the
dynamism and complexity of SES, action situation was included in SES framework to emphasize
the process of interactions and outcomes, and how institutions design and change help in
generating desired outcomes.

The inclusion of the action situation was within the intention of that SES acts into complex system
and hence, its subsystems and variables to the second-tier function into a dynamic process and
non-linear relations. Thus, an important common element for this change was the focus on
dynamics of systems over time (Ostrom & Cox, 2010).

79
Figure 15: Revised SES framework integrating the IAD and SES frameworks

Related Social, Economic, and Political Systems (S)

Governance Systems (GS)

Resource Systems (RS)

Focal Action situations

Interactions (I)-Outcomes (O)

Resource Units (RU) Actors (A)

Direct causal link

Related Ecosystems (ECO)
Feedback

Source: E. Ostrom & M.D. Cox, 2010

The expression of the SES framework into a dynamic system and the integration of the action
situation generated important changes in the above SES framework that are summarized as
follows: i) labels for first-tier categories are changed, to include dynamic system concept, ii)
Actors (A) replaces Users (U), and each User variable was changed to Actor variable for second-
tier attributes in that category, iii) Action Situations is added to the label for Interactions and
Outcomes, iv) multiple instances of first-tier categories may be included in applications. The types
of progress done here are both conceptual and explicative progresses. There is a conceptual
progress because, it is naturally and clearly shown the way the first-tier categories function into
the dynamic system that the outcomes are realized by the interactions within the action situations.
There is an explicative progress because, there SES framework got an improved conception of
structural dependencies. By the figure 15, one can think of Actors interacting in Action Situations
generating Interactions and Outcomes that are affected by and affect a Resource System, Resource

80
Units, Governance System, which then affect and are affected by Social, Economic, and Political
Settings and Related Ecosystems. However, as far as the dynamic system is concerned, the SES
components affects are affected each other. This incited further conceptual and explicative
progresses.

SES framework in 2011

The figure of the SES framework according to E. Ostrom, 2011 has the objective of showing that
the SES components affect and are affected by each other within dynamic interactions. Not only
the action situations generating interactions and outcomes that are affected by and affect a resource
system, resource units, governance system, which then affect and are affected by social, economic,
and political settings and related ecosystems, but also the resource system is affected by and affect
the resource units, and the governance system is affected and affects the Actors. The figure 16
determines the said relationships which consist of conceptual and explicative progresses.

Figure 16: Action Situations Embedded in Broader Social-Ecological Systems

Social, Economic, and Political Settings (S)

Resource Governance
System System (GS)
(RS)

Action Situations

Interactions (I) Outcomes (O)

Resource Units Actors (A)

(RU)

Direct link Feedback

Related Ecosystems (ECO)

Source: E. Ostrom, 2011

Within the action situation, the actors interact and generate interactions and outcomes that are
affected by and affect a resource system, resource units, governance system, which then affect and

81
are affected by social, economic, and political settings and related ecosystems. The figure 17
provides an overview of the highest tier of variables that exist in all SESs. The highest tier of
variables can be unpacked multiple times when one is trying to analyze specific questions related
to SESs in the field.

Figure 17: Revised SES framework SES frameworks for further changes

Related Social, Economic, and Political Systems (S)

Governance Systems (GS)

Resource Systems (RS)

Define and set rules for

set conditions for set conditions for
are part of

Focal Action situations

Interactions (I)-Outcomes (O)

are inputs to
Participate in

Resource Units (RU) Actors (A)

Direct causal link Feedback

Related Ecosystems (ECO)

Source: M.D. Cox & E. Ostrom, 2014

The main changes into the above figure 17 are that labels summarize the logical relationships
between first-tier categories. Specifically, resource units are parts of (or drawn out of) broader
resource systems, and governance systems define and set rules for actors. The application of SES
framework to solve SESs complex problems requires a diagnosis into it. This means taking in mind
that SESs are complex (Ostrom, 2007), and that the diagnosis in complex SES has a problem of
that, “the concept of wholes and parts in complex systems rarely exists in an absolute sense.
Normally what are found, are intermediary structures on a series of levels in ascending order of
complexity, each of which has two faces looking in opposite directions; the face turned toward the

82
lower levels which is that of an autonomous whole, and the one turned upward which is, that of a
dependent part” (VanWey, et al., 2005).

To utilize well the SES framework in the complex SESs issues, a diagnosis into opposite directions
is necessary. In this sense, a view of autonomous whole and dependent parts of the SES framework
oblige a new vision of SES variables in playing a role of interactions and drawing patterns of
interactions which positively or negatively affect the outcomes. This is what E. Ostrom, 2007,
recommend when she advises more and much more diagnosis into SES framework for avoiding
panaceas problem in complex SESs policy making.

In this sense, the variables relevant to functionality of the CPR system in terms of interactions and
formation of patterns of interactions which affect outcomes within a dynamic system are the ones
subject to consider by institutionalists and policy makers. To evaluate this, a case study method
was used in order of not falling into a tramp of what E. Ostrom calls “my case is unique” (Ostrom
E., 2007), and she proved this through the elaboration of the following eight principles which
determine the attributes of successful CPR systems (Ostrom E., 1990). Most successful, robust,
long-lasting CPR regimes can be characterized by six or more of these principles, whereas failed
and fragile CPR regimes do not present more than a few of them (Ostrom, 1997).

In comparison of the SES framework and the IAD framework for the complexity problem
identification and solving, both frameworks identify the elements and general relationships among
these elements that one needs to consider for institutional analysis and they organize diagnostic
and prescriptive inquiry. They provide a general set of variables that can be used to analyze all
types of institutional arrangements. They provide a Meta-theoretical language that can be used to
compare theories. They attempt to identify the universal elements that any theory relevant to the
same kind of phenomena needs to include. Many differences in surface reality can result from the
way these variables combine with or interact with one another. The extent of shared information
available to actors needs to be thought about when asking theoretical questions as well as the flow
of activities and who pays what benefits and receives what costs. Thus, the elements contained in
a framework help analysts generate the questions that need to be addressed when they conduct an
analysis.

83
However, based on the use of these two frameworks for policy analysis, and taking a point of view
of linking the broader contextual variables and micro-situational variables, the IAD framework is
the most influential to the human behavior than the SES framework. Thus, the IAD framework
may continue to be used by itself when the setting to be explained is not heavily affected by
ecological variables, and when action situations are strongly affected by attributes of resource
systems and resource units, the evolving SES framework that now overtly includes action
situations is likely to be used more frequently.

In conclusion, due to the shortcomings of the IAD framework to solve complex problems of the
SESs policy analysis, the SES framework was developed. Its development counted many changes
as it was aiming to help solving the complex problems related to the SESs management. In this
research work, the initial development of the SES framework is dated in 2003, where SES
framework was proposed to respond to the question of what makes the SESs robust. To respond
this question, the base of the institutional arrangement and design principles was done, thus it was
conceptualized as an adaptive complex system composed of: i) resource, ii) resource users, iii)
public infrastructure providers, and iv) public infrastructure. This system is in contact with and
affected by external natural and socio-economic environment by links through resources and
resource users. Its robustness explicatively depends on the interactions and links among the its
components. The main objective was to investigate what makes the SESs robust. In 2004, the
conception of the SES framework knew a little explicative progress of that SES robustness depends
on two types of disturbances: internal disturbances and external disturbances. This was
accompanied with its extinction to respond the questions like: What makes SES robust? How do
institutional arrangements affect the robustness of SESs? Why do some systems survive in highly
varying environments over time and others collapse? Which attributes of the institutions are more
likely to lead to the creation of robust SESs? How do these attributes depend on the underlying
ecological system? Which makes the erotetic progress.

By 2007, SES framework counted a remarkable development progress. Its first figure as it is
known today was established despite some continuing changes. In this year, SES framework was
conceived as a system composed of subsystems and a set of variables whose dependencies and
interdependencies determine the state of the SES. It was used to respond to the questions like:
What patterns of interactions and outcomes are likely to result from using a set of rules for the

84
governance, ownership, and use of a resource system and specific resource units in a specific
technological, socioeconomic, and political environment? What is the likely endogenous
development of different governance arrangements, use patterns, and outcomes with or without
external financial inducements or imposed rules? How robust and sustainable is a configuration of
users, resource system, resource units, and governance system to external and internal
disturbances? The fact of answering these questions shows the erotetic and cognitive progresses
of this framework. The SES framework counts further conceptual progress in 2010 by integration
of the action situation. This also marked explicative and cognitive progresses of that interactions
and outcomes are parts of the situation action. Finally, SES framework got some changes
according to M. D. McGinnis & E. Ostrom, 2014 which are: i) labels for first-tier categories was
changed into dynamic process, ii) Actors (A) replaces Users (U), iii) multiple instances of first-
tier categories may be included in applications, iv) labels summarize the logical relationships
between first-tier categories. Specifically, resource units are parts of broader resource systems, and
governance systems define and set rules for actors. These changes are explicative and cognitive
progresses.

Despite the SES framework scientific progress in itself, it has marked a scientific progress with
respect to the IAD framework in terms of: i) practical progress by being an instrumental of
diagnostic analysis for the complex problems of SESs governance, ii) cognitive progress by being
able to overcome the shortcomings of the IAD framework, and iii) organizational progress by
being able to serve the ecologists and other academics involved in theoretical investigation of the
problems related to the SESs governance.

85
Chapter 5. The Case-based study of the successful and unsuccessful
conditions of Mexican community forests
5.1 Introduction
This chapter consists of the results of the empirical research. Its objectives are: i) to identify
variables whose best patterns of interactions explain successful and unsuccessful conditions across
32 case studies, ii) to identify how the complexity problem of the CPRs is understood through
variable patterns of interactions, iii) to identify how the transition of IAD framework to SES
framework and the study of case studies consist a meta-approach to understand the complexity
problem of CPRs. It responds the questions such as: What are the variables whose configurations
of patterns of interactions lead to success or failure of the case studies of Mexican community
forests? How the identification of their interactions and patterns of interactions helps to solve a
complexity problem embedded in governance of Mexican community forests as complex SES?
This chapter is divided into three main sections: i) the description of the case studies, ii) the
variable performance effect sizes across the case studies, and iii) variable interactions and
configurations of patterns of interactions.

5.2 The case studies

As it was seen in the chapter one and two, the empirical analysis of this research work is based on
the study of the case studies of Mexican community forests and these case studies are summarized
in the following Table 5.

Table 5: Case studies

No Name of the case study
1 CORENCHI communities is a regional
committee formed in 2004 by six
Chinantec communities. It is in the State
of Oaxaca.
2 Sierra de Santa Marta is in EST of the state
of Veracruz, in the region of Tuxtlas. In
1988 was reclassified by SEDESOL, as
special biosphere reserve. But there are no
taken measures to prevent the continued
destruction of forest areas of the reserve.
References
Bray, et al., 2012; Bray, et al., 2008; Nieratka,
et al., 2015; Bost, 2014; Berget, et al., 2015;
Ibarra, et al., 2011.
Durand & Lazos, 2008; Paré & García, 2015;
ARROYO-RODRIGUEZ & MANDUJANO,
2006; DURAND & LAZOS, 2004; Negrete-
Yankelevich, et al., 2013; Arroyo-Rodrıguez,
et al., 2007.

86
3 Serrania de Juan Grande Golden Eagle
Protection Area, it is situated in
Aguascalientes state. The common land
has been voluntarily and specifically put
aside by the community for conservation
purposes.
4 Huitzilac community is situated in
Morelos state. Today, facing significant
loss of its forest cover, Huitzilac is still the
most forested community within the
CBCH and considered Mexico City’s
green lung.
5 Sierra Morena community situated in the
state of Chiapas.
6 The community of Ixtlán de Juárez
situated in Municipio de Ixtlán de Juárez,
state of Oaxaca
7 Forest Associations (FAs) in Durango
8 San Martin Ocotlan, Oaxaca
9 Sierra Norte de Oaxaca or Sierra de
Juárez
10 The highlands of Chiapas
11 The Unidad de Manejo Ambiental (UMA) Chávez Ballado, 2007; ICCA, 2016; Ortiz &
San Crisanto located in Yucatan state Merino, 2011.
12 The Naranjal Poniente of the state of
Quintana Roo
13 Tatahuichi ejido, in State of Chihuahua
CONANP, 2006; Aguascalientes-IMAE,
2010, CONANP, 2008; Aguascalientes-
IMAE, 2010; SEMARNAT, 2002;
CONANP, 2009; Aguascalientes-IMAE,
2006.
Frias & Meredith, 2004; Luz & Ceccon,
2006; Acosta-Urdapilleta, et al., 2014;
Wakild, 2007.
García-Amado, et al., 2012; García-Amado,
et al., 2011; Frias & Meredith, 2004; Corbera
& Adger, 2004.
Asbjornsen & Ashton, 2002; Ramos, et al.,
2010; ZUANY, 2008; Valdez, et al., 2012;
Ruiz-Aquino, et al., 2014.
Garcia-Lopez, 2013; Taylor, 2005; Antinori
& Garcia-Lopez, 2008; Taylor, 2000;
Guerra, 2015; Camille & Gordon, 2010.
Klooster, D., 2000; KLOOSTER, D., 2000;
FAO, 2001.
Merino, 2007; Mitchell, 2008; Asbjornsen &
Ashton, 2002.
Cortina, et al., 2004; Cortina, 2006;
OCHOA-GAONA, et al., 2004.
Barsimantov, et al., 2011; Barsimantov, et
al., 2010; Proselva Tropical de Quintana
Roo, Ocubre del 2010; Bray, et al., 2005.
Luján-Álvarez, et al., 2013; Seanz, 2014;
Luján-Álvarez, et al., 2015.
87
14 Ejido Noh-Bec located in the state of Ríos-Cortez, et al., 2012; Ellis, et al., 2015;
Quintana Roo Bray, 2003; Barsimantov, et al., 2010.

15 The four regions of Guerrero State Merino, 2000; Bray, 2003; Barsimantov &
Kendall, 2012.

16 Nuevo San Juan Parangaricutiro in the Bocco, et al., 2000; Barraza, et al., 2004;
state of Michoacan Bray, 2003; Fregoso, et al., 2001; Jong, et
al., 2007; Orozco-Quintero & Davidson-
Hunt, 2010.

17 Chalchijapa community of the state of Asbjornsen & Ashton, 2002; Asbjornsen &
Oaxaca Ashton, 2002; Payne, 2002; Wickwire &
Halberg, 2002; Wright & Leighton, 2002.

18 Reserva Ecológica Campesina La Rodriguez-Piñeros, et al., 2011; Rodriguez-

Preciosita Sangre de Cristo in Tlahuapan Piñeros & Lewis, 2013; Rodríguez-Piñeros
Puebla & Mayett-Moreno, 2015.

19 Costa Grande of Guerrero DURAN, et al., 2011; Bray, 2003; Vidal,

2005; Chapela, 2015.

20 Los pueblos Mancomunados in the state Valdez, et al., 2012; Zamora, et al., 2010;
of Oaxaca. Guerra, 2015; Cronkleton, et al., 2011;
Mitchell, 2008.

21 The ejido Plan de Ayala in the state of Cano-Díaz, et al., 2015.

Chiapas.

22 The X-Maben in the state of Campeche. Dalle, et al., 2006; Bolland, et al., 2005;
DiGiano, et al., 2013; Mendez-Lopez, et al.,
2015.

23 The Chunhuhub in the state of Quintana Barsimantov, et al., 2011; Barsimantov, et

Roo. al., 2010.

24 The Community of Nuevo San José Rio
Manso in the state of Oaxaca.
IUCN, 2010; Camacho, I., del Campo, C. &
Martin, G. 2008; CDI 2005; Borrini-
Feyerabend, G. (ed.), 2008; Hernandez
Montiel, J.L. 2007; Royal Botanic Gardens
at Kew, 2010.

88
 25 Las Lomas community of the state of Barsimantov & Antezana, 2012; Honey-
Michoacan. Rosés, 2009.

26 The Montes Azules biosphere reserve, in Díaz & Rosano, 2002; EnrÍquez, 2011;
the state of Chiapas. Villatoro & Yáñez, 2003.

27 The community Tierra y Libertad (TyL) Speelman, E. et al., 2014; Vargas-Cetina,

in the state of Chiapas. 2001.

28 La Primavera forest in the state of Jalisco. Torres, et al., 2013; Cuevas-Arias, et al.,
2008; Torres, et al., 2013; Torres & Lovett,
2013.

29 La Sepultura Biosphere Reserve, Chiapas. García-Amado, et al., 2013; García-Amado,

et al., 2012, Medinilla, et al., 2004.

30 The Calakmul Biosphere Reserve located Ericson, 2006; Bray, et al., 2008; Haenn,
in the Campeche state. 2000; Ellis & Porter-Bolland, 2008; Román-
Dañobeytia, et al., 2014; Bray & Velazquez,
2009.

31 Tres Garantías situated in Quintana Roo Toledo-Aceves, et al., 2009; Ellis, et al.,
state. 2015; Anderson & Anderson, 2011.

32 El Balcon located in the state of Guerrero. Torres-Rojo, et al., 2007; BRAY, et al.,
2003; Vidal, 2005; ANTINORI & BRAY,
2005; TORRES-ROJO, et al., 2005.

Source: Own disgn according to E. Ostrom, 1990; 1994; 2012 & SESMAD, 2014

The case studies contained in the table 6 are distributed in 14 states as follows: Oaxaca count for
7 cases, Chiapas with 6 cases, Quintana roo with 4 cases, Guerrero has 3 cases, Campeche is with
2 cases, Michoacan has 2 cases, Aguascalientes, Chihuahua, Durango, Jalisco, Morelos, Puebla,
Veracruz, and Yucatan have only one case for each state. This is summarized in the below figure.

89
Figure 18: Distribution of Case studies by States

Aguascalientes
Campeche
Chiapas
Chihuahua
3%3%3% 6%
13% Durango
Guerrero
19%
3%
Jalisco
Michoacan
3%
22% 3% Morelos

10% Oaxaca
3% 6% 3% Puebla
Quintana roo
Veracruz
Yucatan

Source: Own design based on the concept of E. Ostrom, 2012& SESMAD, 2014
In figure 18, it is noted that the states such as Oaxaca and Chiapas have a major concentration of
the community forests. However, even if the case studies are inequitably distributed across the
states, the concern here is to identify the variable performances across the case studies which
results from a complex system of interactions.

5.3 The variable performance effects across the case studies

The variable performance effects across 32 case studies are classified into two categories: variables
whose performances are consistent across the case studies and variables whose performances vary
across the case studies. The former variable classification generates consistent effects across the
case studies which explain little the complexity problem across the case studies, and they are put
into parentheses in order to focus on the category with effects that vary across the case studies.
These variables are the ones which reflect the problem of the complexity through their complex
interactions and formation of patterns of interactions. Thus, in-depth study is needed to identify
their implications to the success and/or failure conditions across the case studies.
5.3.1 The homogeneous performance of variables across the case studies
The analysis of variable performances into 32 case studies shows that 10 out of 6042 variables have
common attributes across 32 case studies. These variables are: i) 8 variables with homogeneous

42
These variables can be viewed in the annexed table 16

90
performances which are: commons actions43, commons aggregation44, governance knowledge use,
governance scale, governance system description, governance system spatial extent, markets, and
rights type; and ii) the actor group size variable which is small45 in all case studies and there is no
enough46 information to show its significant relationship with the generated outcomes; and the
variable of commons spatial extent has a coefficient of correlation of -0.2063747 with the
outcomes. The negative coefficient shows that larger community forests got lower outcomes.
However, it is too small to generalize this relationship.

The identification of these variables implies that the community forests as SESs share some
common attributes, without considering if it is a successful case study or not. This implies what E.
Ostrom, 2007, says that the researchers in the common resources should not be trapped in
consideration that each case is unique. However, as far as the problem of complexity of the case
studies is concerned, to put in parenthesis these variables help to carry out a thorough study of
those variables whose patterns of interactions explain the complexity among the case studies. They
are variables with variance greater than zero (0) and they show heterogeneous performances of the
variables across the case studies.

5.3.2 Heterogeneous performances of variables across the case studies

The successful or unsuccessful situations of the 32 case studies are explained by the variables
whose performance effects change from one case study to another. In this work, they are 5048 out
of 60 variables, the total of variables used in empirical analysis. Their variability can be
summarized by total recoded performances or observed performances and expected49

43
The common actions identified in all cases studies are extraction, monitoring, conflict resolution, rule-making,
sanctioning, trading, consumption. These actions are currently extended and acted under management plan by large
group size, with rights of access, use, exclusion, management, and alienation. The proportionality of these rights is
not identified, and according to SESMAD project, if there is not rights proportionality, there may be a lack of
motivation to contribute to the successful governance of the common resources, thus for example in this research there
is no habit of self-sanctions. Even if there are no self-sanctions, community forests are governed to the extent to which
conflicts are solved.
44
The aggregation of the resource units is a community of forests for each case study.
45
According to E. Ostrom, 1993; 2012, a small group is less than 15 000 users.
46
There is no common measurement of the actors. In some cases, the actors are given as number of residents or
population whereas in other cases, they are given as number of communities or ejidatarios.
47
This is a coefficient de correlation of spatial extent data measured in hectares and the total outcomes of 32 case
studies. Since the coefficient value closes to zero, means that there is no correlation or relation.
48
These variables can be observed in annexed table 17 and 18.

91
performances given in the 6 table. The recoded performances are the total of variable performances
recorded across 32 case studies by using the SESMAD method whereas the expected performance
refers to the total of higher performances according to SESMAD.

Table 6: The overall observed performance of the variables

Obser Expec Obser Expec

ved ted ved ted
perfor perfor perfor perfor
Variables Variables
mance mance mance mance
Actor adaptive capacity 65 96 External recognition 28 32
Actor group boundary clarity 83 96 External support 40 96
Actor group boundary fuzziness 18 32 Governance strictness trend 57 96
Actor group coordination 90 128 Governance system effect 65 96
Actor group trust 68 96 Incentive type 13 64
Biodiversity trend 64 96 Institutional diversity 54 96
Collective action 66 96 Interest heterogeneity 64 32
Commons boundaries 88 96 Inter-group trust 62 96
Commons boundary
negotiability 69 32 Leadership 68 96
Commons condition trend 65 96 Leadership accountability 44 96
Commons feedback speed fix 60 96 Leadership authority 55 96
Commons feedback speed use 45 96 Multiple levels 25 32
Participation in
Commons feedback visibility fix 59 96 environmental monitoring 58 96
Commons feedback visibility
use 45 96 Participation in rule making 61 96
Participation in social
Commons political power 63 96 monitoring (enforcement) 59 96
Community Participation 68 96 Past collaboration 67 96
Conflict resolution 23 32 Personal communication 101 160
Costs of exit 27 32 Perverse incentives 19 32
Proportionality (of costs and
Cultural dependence 60 96 benefits) 27 32
Cultural services condition 56 96 Provision services condition 63 96

92
Ecosystem service management 36 96 Regulating services condition 68 96
Ecosystem services markets 29 32 Self-monitoring 60 96
Effect confidence 102 128 Self-Sanctions 17 32
Environmental monitoring 51 96 Transaction costs 66 32
External monitoring 20 0 User group well-being change 64 96
Source: Own design based on the concept of E. Ostrom, 2007& SESMAD, 2014

The variables in the above table can be classified into two main groups based on variability of their
performance:
i) Variables whose increase in observed performance, positively affect outcomes from
community forest use. In table 6, these variables have overall observed performances lower
than overall expected performances.
ii) Variables whose negative tendency, positively affect the realized outcomes. In table 6, these
variables have overall observed performance which is greater than the overall expected
performance.
The variables of these groups work into interacting processes that lead either to successful or
unsuccessful situations. To be able to correct the undesired outcomes, it is necessary to understand
these processes.

5.3.3 Successful and unsuccessful case studies

The successful and unsuccessful case studies are determined based on variable performances
across the case studies. These two groups can be viewed in the annexed table 17 and table 18. The
division of the case studies into two groups is based on the overall average of the outcomes50 of
the 32 case studies which is equal to 2.18. Based on this criterion51, the case study with an average
of the outcomes greater than the overall average, is said be successful and the ones with averages
of the outcomes less than the overall average is said to be unsuccessful. Thus, there are a group of

50
This is important because, the outcomes are economic indicator of the CPRs management (Ostrom, 1990; 2005).
The outcomes realized across the successful case studies are found in the annexed table 19 and the one of the
unsuccessful case studies are viewed in annexed table 20.
51
This criterion is very important because it is founded on the outcomes which are critical point for economic
indicators of the successful management of any CPR. To use an arithmetic mean or average is preferred to other
measures of central tendency because like harmonic mean and median because the data do not contain fractions and/or
extreme values, and not only we are interested in central tendency but also in a dispersion measurement. In addition,
the mean of 2.18 is in between an arithmetic mean of 1.95 and a median of 2.21 which means that in this case is the
best measure of the central tendency of the successful and unsuccessful case studies. Hence, it arbitrarily differentiates
the successful and unsuccessful case studies.

93
seventeen (17) successful case studies and a group of fifteen (15) unsuccessful case studies.
However, as far as the variable interactions, patterns of interactions and resulted outcomes are
concerned, these two groups can be clustered into subgroups of high successful, low successful,
low unsuccessful, high unsuccessful or mixed effect. To be able to do this clustering, a dimension
reduction method of the Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA52) by using SPSS to 50
variables whose variance greater than zero (0) was used and the results are in the figure 19 below.
These results can also be achieved by using Excel STATA (XLSTAT) as can be viewed in the
annexed figure 24. However, due to unidentified data, 10 variables53 are missed in the analysis.
This analysis uses 40 out of 50 variables that would be used. To overcome this barrier, a
comparison of results from comprehensive meta-analysis program and multiple correspondence
analysis is maintained.

52
To find Multiple Correspondence Analysis by using SPSS, go to the Analyze menu and then to the Dimension
Reduction submenu, and then to select Optimal Scaling.
53
These are: conflict resolution, costs of exit, ecosystems services markets, external monitoring, external recognition,
multiple levels, perverse incentives, proportionality of costs and benefits, and self-sanctions.

94
Figure 19: Clustering of the successful and unsuccessful case studies based on the 50
variables with variance greater than zero

From figure 19, the 32 case studies are distributed into 4 regions which range from the highest
successful case studies to the highest unsuccessful case studies. The region I contains a subgroup
of 9 highly successful case studies, the region II contains a subgroup of 5 lowly successful case
studies, the region III contains a subgroup of 3 (colored) lowly successful and 5 lowly unsuccessful
case studies-The mixture of the successful and unsuccessful case studies is because, in theory the
successful and unsuccessful situations are not mutually exclusive54 in nature-According to the
criterion of average outcomes of 2.18, the 3 colored case studies are successful whereas the
analysis of variable interactions classifies them as unsuccessful cases. This shows the importance
of studying the complex problem of the unsuccessful condition through the analysis of variable
interactions and their patterns of interactions. And the region IV contains a group of 10 highly
unsuccessful case studies. These results keep the same context when this system is conceptualized

54
In this case, not being mutually exclusive means that not only the outcomes realized explain that a case study is
successful or not. The successful and unsuccessful case studies share some common attributes. That is why to study
how the variables interact and form the patterns of interaction which lead to particular outcomes is necessary.

95
as only a complex system55 without adaptability or feedback effects, and this can be viewed in
annexed figure 23. However, in a complex dynamic system like the system of community forests,
the success and failure situations are not mutually exclusive in nature. Thus, to be able to
understand the complexity problem embedded into these resources, it is necessary to understand
those processes that lead to success or failure situations across the case studies. This is achieved
by analyzing the conditions in which a variable performance can contribute to successful or
unsuccessful situations. This process involves the study of the variability within and across the
case studies when a variable is added or removed. This impact is viewed in table 7.
Table 7: Model summary of analysis of 40 variables across 32 case studies

Dimension Cronbach's Variance Accounted For

Alpha Total (Eigenvalue) Inertia
1 .983 23.874 .597
2 .938 11.736 .293
Total 35.611 .890
a
Mean .968 17.805 .445
a. Mean Cronbach's Alpha is based on the mean Eigenvalue.
According to the above table, in the dimension 1 has higher cronbach’s alpha and variance
accounted for total eigenvalue and inertia than in the dimension 2. This means that in comparison
with the dimension 2, the dimension 1 explains more the variance incurred within and between the
variable performances. Thus, the more importance is put on this dimension.

5.3.4 Performances of variables in successful and unsuccessful case studies

The variable performances across the successful and unsuccessful case studies is summarized in
the below table. The difference of variable performances is identified based on the average of each
total variable performance across 32 case studies which is denoted as total of observed
performances. The detailed variable performances can be viewed in annexed table 17 and 18. The
difference of performances among successful group and unsuccessful one is shown in table 8.

55
This is a system conceptualized in three components (Inputs, Processes and Outputs). In this system, there is no
feedback of the outputs to the Inputs as well as to the Processes.

96
Table 8: Variable performances in the successful and unsuccessful case studies

Total of Average Unsuccessful

observed56 of Successful Cases (15

perfor observed Cases (17 cases) cases)

mances perfor
Variables (32 cases) mances Total Average Total Average
65 2.03 41 2.41 24 1.60
Actor adaptive capacity
83 2.59 49 2.88 34 2.27
Actor group boundary clarity

Actor group boundary fuzziness 18 0.58 14 0.875 4 0.27

90 2.81 53 3.12 37 2.47
Actor group coordination
68 2.13 46 2.71 22 1.47
Actor group trust
64 2.00 45 2.65 19 1.27
Biodiversity trend
66 2.06 47 2.76 19 1.27
Collective action
88 2.75 50 2.94 38 2.53
Commons boundaries
69 2.16 30 1.76 39 2.60
Commons boundary negotiability
65 2.03 46 2.71 19 1.27
Commons condition trend
60 1.88 38 2.24 22 1.47
Commons feedback speed fix
45 1.41 29 1.71 16 1.07
Commons feedback speed use
59 1.84 37 2.18 22 1.47
Commons feedback visibility fix
45 1.41 29 1.71 16 1.07
Commons feedback visibility use
63 1.97 43 2.53 20 1.33
Commons political power
68 2.13 47 2.76 21 1.40
Community Participation
23 0.72 17 1.00 6 0.40
Conflict resolution
27 0.84 17 1.00 10 0.67
Costs of exit
60 2.07 34 2.43 26 1.73
Cultural dependence
56 2.33 34 2.83 22 1.83
Cultural services condition
36 1.16 28 1.65 8 0.57
Ecosystem service management
29 0.91 15 0.88 14 0.93
Ecosystem services markets
102 3.19 60 3.53 42 2.80
Effect confidence
51 1.59 33 1.94 18 1.20
Environmental monitoring
20 0.63 10 0.59 10 0.67
External monitoring

56
These are total of performances observed and coded for each variable across the case studies.

97
 28 0.88 15 0.88 13 0.87
External recognition
40 1.25 20 1.18 20 1.33
External support
57 1.78 38 2.24 19 1.27
Governance strictness trend
65 2.03 45 2.65 20 1.33
Governance system effect
13 0.87 7 1.00 6 0.75
Incentive type
54 1.69 31 1.82 23 1.53
Institutional diversity
64 2.00 23 1.35 41 2.73
Interest heterogeneity
62 1.94 45 2.65 17 1.13
Inter-group trust
68 2.83 36 3.00 32 2.67
Leadership
44 1.69 30 2.00 14 1.17
Leadership accountability
55 1.83 39 2.29 16 1.14
Leadership authority
25 0.83 14 0.82 11 0.85
Multiple levels
Participation in environmental
58 1.81 41 2.41 17 1.13
monitoring
61 1.91 45 2.65 16 1.07
Participation in rule making
59 1.84 43 2.53 16 1.07
Participation in social monitoring
67 2.09 45 2.65 22 1.47
Past collaboration
101 4.59 64 4.92 37 4.11
Personal communication
19 0.59 10 0.59 9 0.60
Perverse incentives
27 0.90 16 1.00 11 0.79
Proportionality (of costs & benefits)
63 1.97 45 2.65 18 1.20
Provision services condition
68 2.13 45 2.65 23 1.53
Regulating services condition
60 1.88 41 2.41 19 1.27
Self-monitoring
17 0.53 15 0.94 2 0.13
Self-Sanctions
66 2.28 30 1.88 36 2.77
Transaction costs
64 2.13 43 2.53 21 1.50
User group well-being change
Source: Own design based on the concept of E. Ostrom, 2007, 2012 & SESMAD, 2014

Based on table 8, the variables in unsuccessful case studies have low total performance than the
variables in successful case studies. This is indicated by their average performance which are red
colored for the variables whose increase in performance positively affect the outcomes, whereas
to the variables whose increase in performance affect negatively the outcomes are black colored,
and their performance figures in unsuccessful case studies are greater than the performances in
successful case studies. This difference is shown by variables with green color of variable with

98
performance below average in successful case studies. The identification of the difference of
variable performances between the successful and unsuccessful case studies has the purpose of
responding to the question of why and how the processes of interactions and patterns of
interactions in some cases lead to successful situations whereas in other cases lead to unsuccessful
conditions. However, as it was seen by differentiating the constant and non-constant variables, not
all variables have the same contribution to successful or unsuccessful situations and nor all best
represent the underlying patterns that lead to successful and unsuccessful situations. The more a
variable has more variance across the 32 case studies, the best it represents the underlying patterns
that lead to successful and unsuccessful situations. This can be viewed in figure 20. Note that when
this system is viewed as only a complex system, i.e without considering its adaptive concept and
the effect of the feedback of the outcomes, its variable underlying patterns can be viewed in the
annexed figure 26 and annexed 27.

99
Figure 20: Underlying patterns of variables

However, the determination and understanding of the underlying patterns which help to understand
those processes that lead to successful or unsuccessful situations is very noisy57. Thus, it is
necessary to identify the variables that best represent the underlying patterns. This is done by
analysis of the effect sizes of variable performances through the standardized mean differences of
variables across the case studies.

57
It is very difficult to decide on the variables which explain the successful and unsuccessful situations (McCormick,
et al., 2017).

100
5.3.5 The effect sizes of Variable performances across successful and unsuccessful case
studies
The analysis is based on the mean effect sizes of the 50 variables across the 32 case studies. The
determination of the effect sizes of the variable performances has the purpose of identifying the
variables that explain more the successful and unsuccessful conditions across the case studies.
Because of the different scales of the data measurement, the standardized mean difference (d) is
preferable used, and it reflects the difference between these two groups. According to T. D. Pigott,
2012, it is calculated as follows:

𝑥̅1 − 𝑥̅2
𝑑=
𝑆within
where:

d= standardized mean difference, 𝑥̅1 is a mean of each variable in successful group,

x̅2 is a mean ofeach variable in unsuccessful grup,

𝑆within 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 within − groups standard deviation and according to T. D. Pigott, 2012, it is
given by the following formula:

(𝑛1 − 1)𝑆12 + (𝑛2 − 1)𝑆22

𝑆within = √
𝑛1+ 𝑛2 − 2

where n1 and n2 are the sample sizes in the two groups, and S1 and S2 are the standard deviations
in the two groups.
As far as the difference of the distributions of the variable performance among the successful and
unsuccessful case studies is concerned, the standard error (Vd) of d to measure the deviation effects
of the d, and according to T. D. Pigott, 2012, it is calculated as follows:
𝑛1+ 𝑛2 𝑑2
𝑉𝑑 = +
𝑛1 𝑛2 2(𝑛1 + 𝑛2 )

Where Vd is the variance of d and the standard error (SEd) of d is the square root of Vd, 𝑆𝐸𝑑 =
√𝑉𝑑 and the results are shown in the table 10.

101
Table 9: Variable effects on successful and unsuccessful situations across 32 case studies

Model Study name Statistics for each study Std diff in means and 95% CI
Std diff Standard Lower Upper
in means error limit limit Z-Value p-Value
Actor adaptive capacity 1.299 0.390 0.535 2.063 3.333 0.001
Actor group boundary clarity 1.143 0.382 0.395 1.892 2.993 0.003
Actor group boundary fuzziness 1.521 0.402 0.733 2.309 3.783 0.000
Actor group coordination 0.680 0.364 -0.034 1.394 1.866 0.062
Actor group trust 2.230 0.451 1.347 3.114 4.947 0.000
Biodiversity trend 2.896 0.506 1.903 3.889 5.718 0.000
Collective action 2.902 0.507 1.909 3.896 5.724 0.000
Commons boundaries 0.865 0.370 0.139 1.591 2.335 0.020
Commons boundary negotiability -1.401 0.395 -2.176 -0.627 -3.546 0.000
Commons condition trend 3.101 0.525 2.072 4.130 5.905 0.000
Commons feedback speed fix 1.282 0.389 0.520 2.044 3.296 0.001
Commons feedback speed use 1.377 0.394 0.605 2.149 3.497 0.000
Commons feedback visibility fix 1.217 0.386 0.461 1.973 3.157 0.002
Commons feedback visibility use 1.204 0.385 0.449 1.958 3.127 0.002
Commons political power 1.926 0.428 1.087 2.766 4.497 0.000
Community Participation 2.290 0.455 1.397 3.182 5.027 0.000
Conflict resolution 1.732 0.415 0.918 2.546 4.172 0.000
Costs of exit 1.000 0.376 0.264 1.736 2.662 0.008
Cultural dependence 0.884 0.371 0.157 1.612 2.383 0.017
Cultural services condition 1.764 0.417 0.947 2.582 4.228 0.000
Ecosystem service management 1.904 0.427 1.068 2.740 4.461 0.000
Ecosystem services markets -0.170 0.355 -0.866 0.526 -0.479 0.632
Effect confidence 1.551 0.404 0.759 2.342 3.841 0.000
Environmental monitoring 1.036 0.377 0.297 1.776 2.748 0.006
External monitoring -0.157 0.355 -0.853 0.538 -0.444 0.657
External recognition 0.046 0.354 -0.648 0.740 0.130 0.897
External support -0.176 0.355 -0.872 0.520 -0.496 0.620
Governance strictness trend 1.678 0.412 0.871 2.485 4.077 0.000
Governance system effect 2.679 0.487 1.723 3.634 5.495 0.000
Incentive type 0.326 0.357 -0.373 1.025 0.914 0.361
Institutional diversity 0.354 0.357 -0.346 1.053 0.991 0.322
Interest heterogeneity -2.299 0.456 -3.193 -1.405 -5.040 0.000
Inter-group trust 3.004 0.516 1.993 4.016 5.819 0.000
Leadership 0.991 0.375 0.255 1.727 2.641 0.008
Leadership accountability 1.764 0.417 0.946 2.582 4.228 0.000
Leadership authority 1.962 0.431 1.117 2.806 4.553 0.000
Multiple levels -0.059 0.354 -0.753 0.636 -0.166 0.868
Participation in environmental monitoring 2.231 0.451 1.347 3.115 4.948 0.000
Participation in rule making 2.915 0.508 1.919 3.912 5.736 0.000
Participation in social monitoring (enforcement) 2.646 0.485 1.696 3.596 5.460 0.000
Past collaboration 2.085 0.440 1.223 2.947 4.741 0.000
Personal communication 0.851 0.370 0.126 1.576 2.302 0.021
Perverse incentives -0.023 0.354 -0.718 0.671 -0.065 0.948
Proportionality (of costs and benefits) 0.737 0.366 0.019 1.454 2.013 0.044
Provision services condition 3.162 0.531 2.122 4.202 5.958 0.000
Regulating services condition 2.210 0.449 1.330 3.091 4.920 0.000
Self monitoring 1.736 0.415 0.922 2.550 4.179 0.000
Self Sanctions 1.787 0.419 0.966 2.608 4.267 0.000
Transaction costs -1.247 0.387 -2.006 -0.489 -3.222 0.001
User group well-being change 1.993 0.433 1.144 2.842 4.602 0.000
Random 1.280 0.160 0.966 1.594 7.998 0.000
-4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00

Favours AFavours B
Normally, the significant variables to explain the processes that lead to successful or unsuccessful
Meta-Analysis of the 32 case studies of Mexican community forests

situations across the case studies, are those variables which have the Z-values greater than the
critical Z-value of |1.96| with significant P-values. They are considered as significantly
determinant of the successful and unsuccessful conditions because they excessively perform in the
successful case studies and lowly perform in the unsuccessful ones. They have highest variances
across the case studies which are the bases to explain the complexity across the case studies.
However, because the objective of this study is to identify a set of variables with the best patterns
to explain the successful and unsuccessful conditions, it deliberately includes the variables with
Z-values ≥ |3| with most significant P-values.

According to the results in the above table 9, the effect size mean across the case studies is
measured by the random effect size model which has a mean equal to 1.280 and Z-value of 7.998
and P-value of 0.000 with lower limit of 0.966 and upper limit of 1.594. This model helps to
identify the mean effect in a range of the 50 variables across the case studies. This information

102
permits to reject the null hypothesis that the true effect size is equal to zero. It means that the
variance between the variable mean effect sizes is not zero. This means that the contribution of
each variable to the success or failure situations varies across the case studies. The variability of
the contributions of the set of variables of the SES framework is one of the major means of
reflecting the complex problem of the CPRs governance.

5.3.6. The more relevant variables to explain the success and failure conditions.
Based on the criteria of significance of the standard difference in means with Z-values ≥ |3.00|58
and significant P-values, 33 out of 50 variables are considered as more explicative of the successful
and failure situations within the case studies. These variables are listed in the below table 10.
Table 10: Variables that explain more the successful and unsuccessful situations
Standard
difference Standard
Variable of the study in Means error Z-value P-value
Actor adaptive capacity 1.299 0.390 3.333 0.001
Actor group boundary fuzziness 1.315 0.391 3.783 0.000
Actor group trust 2.230 0.451 4.947 0.000
Biodiversity trend 2.896 0.506 5.718 0.000
Collective action 2.902 0.507 5.724 0.000
Commons boundary negotiability -1.401 0.395 -3.546 0.000
Commons condition trend 3.101 0.525 5.905 0.000
Commons feedback speed fix 1.282 0.389 3.296 0.001
Commons feedback speed use 1.377 0.394 3.497 0.000
Commons feedback visibility fix 1.217 0.386 3.157 0.002
Commons feedback visibility use 1.204 0.385 3.127 0.002
Commons political power 1.926 0.428 4.497 0.000
Community Participation 2.290 0.455 5.027 0.000
Conflict resolution 1.732 0.415 4.172 0.000
Cultural services condition 1.764 0.417 4.228 0.000
Ecosystem service management 1.904 0.427 4.461 0.000
Effect confidence 1.551 0.404 3.841 0.000
Governance strictness trend 1.678 0.412 4.077 0.000
Governance system effect 2.679 0.487 5.495 0.000
Interest heterogeneity -2.299 0.456 -5.040 0.000
Inter-group trust 3.004 0.516 5.819 0.000
Leadership accountability 1.764 0.417 4.228 0.000
Leadership authority 1.962 0.431 4.553 0.000

58
This is deliberately chosen with the purpose of identifying the variables with best patterns of interactions that explain
well the processes that lead to the successful or unsuccessful situations across the case studies.

103
 Participation in environmental monitoring 2.231 0.451 4.948 0.000
Participation in rule making 2.915 0.508 5.736 0.000
Participation in social monitoring-enforcement 2.646 0.485 5.460 0.000
Past collaboration 2.085 0.440 4.741 0.000
Provision services condition 3.162 0.531 5.958 0.000
Regulating services condition 2.210 0.449 4.920 0.000
Self-monitoring 1.736 0.415 4.179 0.000
Self-Sanctions 1.787 0.419 4.267 0.000
Transaction costs -1.247 0.387 -3.222 0.001
User group well-being change 1.993 0.433 4.602 0.000
Source: Own design based on case study research and the concept of E. Ostrom, 2007& SESMAD, 2014.

The variables contained in table 10, are classified into two groups. The variables with positive
standard difference in means, and their increase in performance contribute to the success situation
and vice versa, and the variables with negative standard difference in means, their decrease in
performance positively contribute to the success situation and vice versa. They are the variables
which present best underlying patterns that explain the successful and unsuccessful situations
across the case studies. This is also supported by the method of Multiple Correspondence Analysis
as it is presented in the figure 21.

Figure 21: Variables with best underlying patterns which explain better the successful and
unsuccessful situations across the case studies

104
According to the figure 21, the variables more significant to explain the processes that lead to the
successful and unsuccessful situations are those which have highest variances in terms of the X-
axis as well as the Y-axis. This can be observed on dimension 1 by moving from the lower point
zero (0) to the right. The importance of the dimension 1 in the figures 21 and 5 is that it represents
more the variances within and between the variable performances than the dimension 2. This can
be observed in the below model summary corresponding to these figures.
Table 11: Model summary of 30 variables with best patterns to explain successful
and unsuccessful across 32 case studies.

Dimension Cronbach's Alpha Variance Accounted For

Total (Eigenvalue) Inertia

1 .985 21.077 .703

2 .923 9.293 .310
Total 30.370 1.012
Mean .966a 15.185 .506

a. Mean Cronbach's Alpha is based on the mean Eigenvalue.

According to the above table 11, the dimension 1 has higher Cronbach’s alpha and variance
accounted for total eigenvalue and inertia than in the dimension 2 which means that it explains
more the variance occurring within and between the variable performances. Comparing with the
results gotten by the comprehensive meta-analysis method, the only difference of these variables
with those of the table 11 is 3 missed variables59 due to their unidentified data. The variable
interactions and the resulting outputs are not taken into the adaptive concept of the complexity
system of the community forest SES, the same results can be viewed in the annexed figure 25 and
annexed figure 26. By using these variables to identify how they explain the complexity embedded
into the variable interactions and resulting outcomes, the results are given into the below table 12.

59
These are: conflict resolution and self-sanctions.

105
Table 12: The variables that best explain the successful and unsuccessful situations across the
case studies

Model Study name Statistics for each study Std diff in means and 95% CI

Std diff Standard Lower Upper

in means error limit limit Z-Value p-Value

Actor adaptive capacity 1.299 0.390 0.535 2.063 3.333 0.001

Actor group boundary fuzziness 1.521 0.402 0.733 2.309 3.783 0.000
Actor group trust 2.230 0.451 1.347 3.114 4.947 0.000
Biodiversity trend 2.896 0.506 1.903 3.889 5.718 0.000
Collective action 2.902 0.507 1.909 3.896 5.724 0.000
Commons boundary negotiability -1.401 0.395 -2.176 -0.627 -3.546 0.000
Commons condition trend 3.101 0.525 2.072 4.130 5.905 0.000
Commons feedback speed fix 1.282 0.389 0.520 2.044 3.296 0.001
Commons feedback speed use 1.377 0.394 0.605 2.149 3.497 0.000
Commons feedback visibility fix 1.217 0.386 0.461 1.973 3.157 0.002
Commons feedback visibility use 1.204 0.385 0.449 1.958 3.127 0.002
Commons political power 1.926 0.428 1.087 2.766 4.497 0.000
Community Participation 2.290 0.455 1.397 3.182 5.027 0.000
Conflict resolution 1.732 0.415 0.918 2.546 4.172 0.000
Cultural services condition 1.764 0.417 0.947 2.582 4.228 0.000
Ecosystem service management 1.904 0.427 1.068 2.740 4.461 0.000
Effect confidence 1.551 0.404 0.759 2.342 3.841 0.000
Governance strictness trend 1.678 0.412 0.871 2.485 4.077 0.000
Governance system effect 2.679 0.487 1.723 3.634 5.495 0.000
Interest heterogeneity -2.299 0.456 -3.193 -1.405 -5.040 0.000
Inter-group trust 3.004 0.516 1.993 4.016 5.819 0.000
Leadership accountability 1.764 0.417 0.946 2.582 4.228 0.000
Leadership authority 1.962 0.431 1.117 2.806 4.553 0.000
Participation in environmental monitoring 2.231 0.451 1.347 3.115 4.948 0.000
Participation in rule making 2.915 0.508 1.919 3.912 5.736 0.000
Participation in social monitoring (enforcement) 2.646 0.485 1.696 3.596 5.460 0.000
Past collaboration 2.085 0.440 1.223 2.947 4.741 0.000
Provision services condition 3.162 0.531 2.122 4.202 5.958 0.000
Regulating services condition 2.210 0.449 1.330 3.091 4.920 0.000
Self monitoring 1.736 0.415 0.922 2.550 4.179 0.000
Self Sanctions 1.787 0.419 0.966 2.608 4.267 0.000
Transaction costs -1.247 0.387 -2.006 -0.489 -3.222 0.001
User group well-being change 1.993 0.433 1.144 2.842 4.602 0.000
Random 1.712 0.214 1.293 2.130 8.015 0.000

-4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00

According to the above table 12, the variables with best patterns of interactionsFavours
that best explain
AFavours B

theMeta-Analysis
successful and unsuccessful situations across the 32 case studies are 33 variables. The question
of the 32 case studies of Mexican community forests

then is how a set of these variables lead to either successful or unsuccessful conditions. By
analyzing the performance distributions and their impact on successful and unsuccessful case
studies’ clustering, it was identified that there is no a big change from the results about clustering
of successful and unsuccessful case studies of the figure 19. This can be observed in below figure
22.

106
Figure 22: Successful and unsuccessful case studies labeled by case numbers

In general, there is no change in the case studies’ clustering compared to the distribution of the
case studies in the figure 19. The next part deals with identifying the variable interactions and
patterns of interactions which lead to successful or unsuccessful situations across the case studies.
5.4 Variable interactions and configurations of patterns of interactions
The identification and explanation of the complexity embedded into the process of interactions
and the formation of the patterns of interactions which lead to successful and unsuccessful
conditions is done by using the E. Ostrom SES framework. In this framework, the configurations
are done by a set of variables at the second level. At this level, each case study has its own variable
configurations which lead to success or failure conditions. The interactions are done within the
SES by sets of variables of each subsystem of the three SES components- Resource System (RS),

107
Governance System (GS), and the System of Users (U). The interactions and formation of patterns
of interactions per SES framework is shown in table 14.

Table 13: Variable performances in three higher successful case studies and in three lower
unsuccessful case studies

Social, Economic, and Political Settings (S)

Successful Unsuccessful Successful Unsuccessful
RESOURCE cases cases GOVERNANCE cases cases
SYSTEM (RS) C1 C3 C11 C4 C10 C15 SYSTEM (GS) C1 C3 C11 C4 C10 C15
Biodiversity trend 3 3 3 1 1 1 Governance strictness trend 3 3 3 1 1 1
Commons condition trend 3 3 3 1 1 1 Governance system effect 3 3 3 1 1 1
Cultural services condition 3 3 3 1 (-) 1 Inter-group trust 3 3 3 1 1 1
Provision services condition 3 3 3 1 1 1 Transaction costs 2 (-) 2 3 (-) 3
Regulating services condition 3 3 3 1 1 1 USERS(U)
Actor adaptive capacity 3 3 3 2 1 1
Actor group boundary
fuzziness 1 1 1 1 0 0
Actor group trust 3 3 3 2 1 1
Collective action 3 3 3 1 1 1
Commons boundary
negotiability 2 1 1 3 2 3
Commons feedback speed
fix 2 2 2 1 1 1
Commons feedback speed
use 2 2 2 1 1 1
Commons feedback
visibility fix 2 2 2 1 1 1
Commons feedback
visibility use 2 2 2 1 1 1
Commons political power 3 3 3 1 1 1
Community Participation 3 3 3 1 1 1
Conflict resolution 1 1 1 0 0 1
Ecosystem service
management 2 2 2 0 0 1
Effect confidence 4 4 4 3 2 3
Interest heterogeneity 1 1 1 3 3 3
Leadership accountability 3 (-) 2 1 1 1
Leadership authority 3 3 2 1 1 1
Participation in
environmental monitoring 3 3 3 1 1 1
Participation in rule making 3 3 3 1 1 1
Participation in social
monitoring 3 3 3 1 1 1
Past collaboration 3 3 3 1 2 1
Self-monitoring 1 2 3 1 2 3
Self-Sanctions 1 1 1 0 0 0
User group well-being
change 3 3 3 1 1 1
INTERACTIONS (I)-OUTCOMES (O)

108
 Actor adaptive capacity (A) 3 3 3 2 1 1 Actor adaptive capacity 3 3 3 2 1 1
Actor group boundary
fuzziness (A) 1 1 1 1 0 0 Biodiversity trend 3 3 3 1 1 1
Biodiversity trend (RS) 3 3 3 1 1 1 Collective action 3 3 3 1 1 1
Collective action (A) 3 3 3 1 1 1 Commons condition trend 3 3 3 1 1 1
Commons boundary
negotiability (A) 2 1 1 3 2 3 Cultural services condition 3 3 3 1 (-) 1
Commons condition trend
(RS) 3 3 3 1 1 1 Effect confidence 4 4 4 3 2 3
Commons feedback speed fix
(A) 2 2 2 1 1 1 Governance system effect 3 3 3 1 1 1
Commons feedback speed use Provision services
(A) 2 2 2 1 1 1 condition 3 3 3 1 1 1
Commons feedback visibility Regulating services
fix (A) 2 2 2 1 1 1 condition 3 3 3 1 1 1
Commons feedback visibility User group well-being
use (A) 2 2 2 1 1 1 change 3 3 3 1 1 1
Commons political power (A) 3 3 3 1 1 1
Cultural services condition
(RS) 3 3 3 1 (-) 1
Ecosystem service
management (A) 2 2 2 0 0 1
Effect confidence (A) 4 4 4 3 2 3
Governance strictness trend
(GS) 3 3 3 1 1 1
Governance system effect
(GS) 3 3 3 1 1 1
Inter-group trust (GS) 3 3 3 1 1 1
Participation in
environmental monitoring (A) 3 3 3 1 1 1
Participation in rule making
(A) 3 3 3 1 1 1
Participation in social
monitoring (A) 3 3 3 1 1 1
Provision services condition
(RS) 3 3 3 1 1 1
Regulating services condition
(RS) 3 3 3 1 1 1
Self-monitoring (A) 1 2 3 1 2 3
Self-Sanctions (A) 1 1 1 0 0 0
Transaction costs (GS) 2 (-) 2 3 (-) 3
User group well-being change
(A) 3 3 3 1 1 1
Related Ecosystems (ECO)
Source: Own design based on the concept of E. Ostrom, 2007 & SESMAD, 2014

Where C= Case, (-) stands for unidentified data, the variable performances in red color are those
which are below the average of performance across the case studies. The number 1, 2, 3 or 4
represent the categories of performance. The high performance of the variables in the successful
case studies, positively affect the outcomes, whereas the variable performances which are greater
than their respective average in the unsuccessful case studies, imply a negative influence in the
outcomes.

109
Comparing three highest successful case studies and three lowest unsuccessful case studies, the
successful situations of the case studies are due to: the resource system characterized by improved
biodiversity trend, commons condition trend, cultural services condition, provision services
condition, and regulating services condition. The status of these resources is due to the interactions
with the governance system and system of actors. The governance system is characterized by:
more strict governance, a governance system which meets goals, high inter-group trust, and the
transaction costs which are relatively low, whereas a system of actors is characterized by: a high
actor adaptive capacity, a high actor group trust, high collective actions, a low commons boundary
negotiability, medium commons feedback fix and use and medium commons feedback visibility
fix and visibility use, a high common political power, a high community participation, a high
degree of existence of the conflict resolution, a medium regulation ecosystem service management,
a high effect confidence, high participation in environmental monitoring, a high participation in
rule making, a high participation in social monitoring, a moderate self-monitoring, an existence of
self-sanctions, and an improved user group well-being change.

The interactions and combination of the above characteristics lead to the results such as: high
adaptive capacity of actors, improved biodiversity trend, high collective action, improved
commons condition trend, improved cultural services condition, high effect confidence, high
governance system effect, improved provision services condition, improved regulating service
condition, and improved user group well-being.

While the successful situations depend on the higher performance of the variables, the
unsuccessful situations also depend on the poor performance of set of variables within the case
studies. This is as follows:

The resource system is characterized by worsen biodiversity trend, worsen commons condition
trend, worsen cultural services condition, worsen provision services condition, and worsen
regulating services condition. The state of these resources is in relationship with the interactions
with the governance system and system of actors. The governance system is characterized by: a
less strict governance, a governance system which fails to meet goals, low inter-group trust, and
higher transaction costs. The system of actors is characterized by: a low actor group trust, a low
collective actions, a high commons boundary negotiability, a relatively low medium commons
feedback fix and use and medium commons feedback visibility fix and visibility use, a low

110
common political power, a low regulation ecosystem service management, a low effect confidence,
a low participation in environmental monitoring, a low participation in rule making, a low
participation in social monitoring, a low self-monitoring, a lack of self-sanctions, and a worsen
user group well-being change.

The interactions and combination of the above characteristics lead to the results such as: low
adaptive capacity of actors, worsen biodiversity trend, low collective action, worsen commons
condition trend, worsen cultural services condition, low effect confidence, low governance system
effect, worsen provision services condition, worsen regulating service condition, and worsen user
group well-being.

However, not all successful case studies specifically have the same characteristics, neither are the
failed case studies. Each case has its unique configuration of variable interactions and formed
patterns of interactions. In the next section the detailed interactions and patterns of the interactions
for each of three successful case studies and three unsuccessful case studies are given.

The first example is the case study number one (1) which is successful case study with total
outcomes of 31 points. It has a resource system characterized by improved biodiversity trend,
improved commons condition trend, improved cultural services condition, improved provision
services condition, and improved regulating services condition. The improvement in the state of
the resource system is in relation with the interactions, on one hand, with the governance system
characterized by: more strict governance, a governance system which meets goals, high inter-
group trust and medium transaction costs and, on the other hand, with a system of actors
characterized by: a high trust in actor group, high collective actions, a moderate commons
boundary negotiability, medium commons feedback fix and use and medium commons feedback
visibility fix and visibility use, a high common political power, a high community participation,
existence of the conflict resolution, a high effect confidence, a high participation in environmental
monitoring, a high participation in rule making, a high participation in social monitoring, a low
self-monitoring, an existence of self-sanctions, and an improved user group well-being change.
The interactions of the resource system, and governance system with action arena of actors result
in high adaptive capacity of actors, improved biodiversity trend, high collective action, improved
commons condition trend, improved cultural services condition, high effect confidence, high

111
governance system effect, improved provision services condition, improved regulating service
condition, and improved user group well-being.

The second example is case study number three (3). It is also among successful case studies with
total outcomes of 31 points. The resource system is characterized by: improvement in biodiversity
trend, commons condition trend, cultural services condition, provision services condition, and
regulating services condition. This improvement of the resource system is due to the interactions
on one hand with the governance system characterized by; more strict governance, a governance
system which meets goals, and a high inter-group trust; on the other hand with a system of actors
characterized by: a high actor group trust, a high collective actions, a low commons boundary
negotiability, medium commons feedback fix and use and medium commons feedback visibility
fix and visibility use, a high common political power, a high community participation, an existence
of the conflict resolution, a high ecosystem services management, a high effect confidence, a high
participation in environmental monitoring, a low interest heterogeneity, a medium in leadership
accountability and high leadership authority, a high participation in rule making, a high
participation in social monitoring, a high past collaboration, a moderate self-monitoring, an
existence of self-sanctions, and an improved user group well-being change.

The interactions of the resource system and governance system with action arena of actors result
in: high adaptive capacity of actors, improved biodiversity trend, high collective action, improved
commons condition trend, improved cultural services condition, high effect confidence, high
governance system effect, improved provision services condition, improved regulating service
condition, and improved user group well-being.

The third example is case study number eleven (11). It is also a successful case study with total
outcomes of 31 points. It has got the resource system which is characterized by improvement in:
biodiversity trend, commons condition trend, cultural services condition, provision services
condition, and regulating services condition. The improvement in state of resource system is due
to the interactions on one hand with the governance system characterized by: more strict
governance, a governance system which meets goals, high inter-group trust, and medium
transaction costs; on the other hand with a system of actors characterized by: a high actor group
trust, a high collective actions, a low commons boundary negotiability, medium commons
feedback fix and use and medium commons feedback visibility fix and visibility use, a high

112
common political power, a high community participation, an existence of the conflict resolution,
a medium regulation ecosystem service management, a high effect confidence, a low interest
heterogeneity, a medium leadership authority and accountability, a high participation in rule
making, a high participation in social monitoring, a high past collaboration, a high self-monitoring,
an existence of self-sanctions, and an improved user group well-being change.

The interactions of the resource system, and governance system with action arena of actors result
in high adaptive capacity of actors, improved biodiversity trend, high collective action, improved
commons condition trend, improved cultural services condition, high effect confidence, high
governance system effect, improved provision services condition, improved regulating service
condition, and improved user group well-being.

While the successful case studies present better performance of variable interactions and ending
results, the unsuccessful case studies present poor variable performances as well as poor
performance in outcomes. This situation is explained in the following three examples of
unsuccessful case studies:

The first example of unsuccessful case studies is a case number four (4) with total outcomes of 13
points. Its resource system is characterized by: worsen biodiversity trend, worsen commons
condition trend, worsen cultural services condition, worsen provision services condition, and
worsen regulating services condition. The state of these resources is in relationship with the
interactions with the governance system and system of actors. A governance system characterized
by: less strict governance, a governance system which fails to meet goals, low inter-group trust,
and high transaction costs. A system of actors characterized by: a medium actor group trust, low
collective actions, a high commons boundary negotiability, low commons feedback fix and use
and low commons feedback visibility fix and visibility use, a low common political power, a low
community participation, lack of conflict resolution, lack of ecosystem service management, a low
effect confidence, a high interest heterogeneity, a low leadership accountability and authority, a
low participation in rule making, a low participation in social monitoring, a low past collaboration,
a low self-monitoring, a lack of self-sanctions, and a worsen user group well-being change.

The interactions and combination of the above characteristics lead to the results such as: medium
adaptive capacity of actors, worsen biodiversity trend, low collective action, worsen commons

113
condition trend, worsen cultural services condition, very confident effect, low governance system
effect, worsen provision services condition, worsen regulating service condition, and worsen user
group well-being.

The second example of the unsuccessful case studies is case study number ten (10) and it has total
outcomes of 10 points. It is a constituent of a resource system characterized by: worsen biodiversity
trend, worsen commons condition trend, worsen provision services condition, and worsen
regulating services condition. The resource system condition is related to the interactions with the
governance system and system of actors characterized by: (i) a governance system which is less
strict, which fails to meet goals, and a low inter-group trust, and (ii) a system of actors
characterized by: a low actor group trust, a low collective actions, a medium commons boundary
negotiability, low commons feedback fix and use and low commons feedback visibility fix and
visibility use, a low common political power, a low community participation, a lack of conflict
resolution, a lack of ecosystem service management, a low effect confidence, a high interest
heterogeneity, a low leadership accountability and authority, a low participation in rule making, a
low participation in social monitoring, a medium past collaboration, a medium self-monitoring, a
lack of self-sanctions, and a worsen user group well-being change. The interactions and
combination of the above characteristics reads to the results such as: low adaptive capacity of
actors, worsen biodiversity trend, low collective action, worsen commons condition trend, low
effect confidence, low governance system effect, worsen provision services condition, worsen
regulating service condition, and worsen user group well-being.

The third example of unsuccessful case study is case study number fifteen (15) and has total
outcomes of 12 points. It has the resource system characterized by: worsen biodiversity trend,
worsen commons condition trend, worsen cultural services condition, worsen provision services
condition, and worsen regulating services condition. The condition of the resources is in
relationship with the interactions with the governance system and system characterized by: (i) a
governance system characterized by: less strict governance, a governance system which fails to
meet goals, low inter-group trust and higher transaction costs, (ii) a system of actors characterized
by: a low actor group trust, a low collective actions, a high commons boundary negotiability, low
commons feedback fix and use and low commons feedback visibility fix and visibility use, a low
common political power, a low community participation, an existence of conflict resolution, a low

114
of ecosystem service management, a high effect confidence, a high interest heterogeneity, a low
leadership accountability and authority, a low environmental monitoring and participation in
environmental monitoring, a low participation in rule making, a low participation in social
monitoring, a low past collaboration, a high self-monitoring, a lack of self-sanctions, and a worsen
user group well-being change.

The interactions and combination of the above characteristics lead to the results such as: medium
adaptive capacity of actors, worsen biodiversity trend, low collective action, worsen commons
condition trend, worsen cultural services condition, very confident effect, low governance system
effect, worsen provision services condition, worsen regulating service condition, and worsen user
group well-being.

Analyzing the above configurations of the case studies, it was identified that each case study has
got its own configuration which results in success or failure of the resource governance system.
This depends on how variable performance changes; i.e change in a variable may cause change in
whole system of outcomes, and more, not all variable changes have the same impact on the system
of outcomes. Thus, each case study generates its own configurations and consequently, the use of
blueprint policies cannot guarantee the successful management.

The table 15 consists of a comparison of 3 extremes of highest successful case studies and 3 lowest
unsuccessful case studies. This comparison shows that the successful conditions depend on good
performances among the variables whereas unsuccessful conditions depend on the poor
performances of the variables. However, it is also necessary to compare centric case studies to see
if there is central tendency in the variable performances of the successful and unsuccessful case
studies.

115
Table 14: Variable performance in three successful case studies with lowest outcomes and
three unsuccessful case studies with highest outcomes

Social, Economic, and Political Settings (S)

successful unsuccessfu successful unsuccessfu
cases l cases cases l cases
RESOURCE C2 C3 C3 C C2 C2
GOVERNANCE C2 C3 C3 C C2 C2
SYSTEM (RS) 1 1 2 5 7 8 SYSTEM (GS) 1 1 2 5 7 8
Biodiversity trend 2 2 3 2 2 2 Governance strictness trend 2 2 3 1 2 2
Commons condition trend 2 2 3 2 2 2 Governance system effect 2 3 3 2 2 2
Cultural services condition 2 (-) 2 2 2 (-) Inter-group trust 2 2 3 1 1 1
Provision services
condition 2 2 3 2 2 2 Transaction costs 2 2 1 3 3 3
Regulating services
condition 3 2 3 2 2 2 USERS(U)
Actor adaptive capacity 1 2 3 2 2 3
Actor group boundary
fuzziness 0 1 1 0 1 0
Actor group trust 2 2 3 2 2 2
Collective action 3 2 3 2 2 2
Commons boundary
negotiability 2 1 2 2 2 3
Commons feedback speed fix 2 3 3 2 1 2
Commons feedback speed use 1 2 2 2 1 1
Commons feedback visibility
fix 2 3 3 2 1 2
Commons feedback visibility
use 1 2 3 2 1 1
Commons political power 3 2 3 1 2 2
Community Participation 3 2 3 3 1 2
Conflict resolution 1 1 1 0 1 1
Ecosystem service
management 2 2 2 1 1 1
Effect confidence 3 3 3 3 3 2
Interest heterogeneity 2 1 1 3 3 2
Leadership accountability 2 2 2 1 2 (-)
Leadership authority 2 2 3 1 1 (-)
Participation in environmental
monitoring 2 2 3 1 1 2
Participation in rule making 3 2 3 1 1 1
Participation in social
monitoring (enforcement) 2 2 3 1 1 1
Past collaboration 2 3 3 2 1 1
Self-monitoring 3 3 3 1 1 2
Self-Sanctions 1 (-) 1 0 0 0

User group well-being change

2 2 3 2 2 2

INTERACTIONS (I)-OUTCOMES
Actor adaptive capacity
(A) 1 2 3 2 2 3 Actor adaptive capacity 1 2 3 2 2 3
Actor group boundary
fuzziness (A) 0 1 1 0 1 0 Biodiversity trend 2 2 3 2 2 2
Biodiversity trend (RS) 2 2 3 2 2 2 Collective action 3 2 3 2 2 2

116
 Collective action (A) 3 2 3 2 2 2 Commons condition trend 2 2 3 2 2 2
Commons boundary
negotiability (A) 2 1 2 2 2 3 Cultural services condition 2 (-) 2 2 2 (-)
Commons condition trend
(RS) 2 2 3 2 2 2 Effect confidence 3 3 3 3 3 2
Commons feedback speed
fix (A) 2 3 3 2 1 2 Governance system effect 2 3 3 2 2 2
Commons feedback speed
use (A) 1 2 2 2 1 1 Provision services condition 2 2 3 2 2 2
Commons feedback
visibility fix (A) 2 3 3 2 1 2 Regulating services condition 3 2 3 2 2 2
Commons feedback
visibility use (A) 1 2 3 2 1 1 User group well-being change 2 2 3 2 2 2
Commons political power
(A) 3 2 3 1 2 2
Cultural services condition
(RS) 2 (-) 2 2 2 (-)
Ecosystem service
management (A) 2 2 2 1 1 1
Effect confidence (A) 3 3 3 3 3 2
Governance strictness
trend (GS) 2 2 3 1 2 2
Governance system effect
(GS) 2 3 3 2 2 2
Inter-group trust (GS) 2 2 3 1 1 1
Participation in
environmental monitoring 2 2 3 1 1 2
(A)
Participation in rule
making (A) 3 2 3 1 1 1
Participation in social
monitoring (A) 2 2 3 1 1 1
Provision services
condition (RS) 2 2 3 2 2 2
Regulating services
condition (RS) 3 2 3 2 2 2
Self-monitoring (A) 3 3 3 1 1 2
Self-Sanctions (A) 1 (-) 1 0 0 0
Transaction costs (GS) 2 2 1 3 3 3
User group well-being
change (A) 2 2 3 2 2 2

Related Ecosystems (ECO)

Source: Own design based on the concept of E. Ostrom, 2007 & SESMAD, 2014

Where C= Case, (-) stands for unidentified data, the variable performances in red color are the
ones which are below the average of performances in the case studies. The high performance of
the variables, positively affect the outcomes. The variables with performances greater than their
respective average imply a negative influence on the outcomes.

The above table 14 contains the comparison of three successful case studies with lowest outcomes
and three unsuccessful case studies with highest outcomes. This is in the purpose of investigating
if there are similarities or differences in the variable configurations. It was identified the central
tendency in the variable performances. This means that there is an increase tendency in the variable
performances from the unsuccessful case studies with the lowest outcomes relative to the

117
unsuccessful case studies with highest outcomes. Contrary, there is a decrease tendency of variable
performances from the successful case studies with higher outcomes relative to the successful case
studies with low outcomes. Thus, there is a transition of the unsuccessful case studies to the
successful case studies if the accurate institutional change is done, and the inverse condition may
exist if institutions fail.

To conclude, we can say that the case study research along with the theoretical analysis of the
transition of IAD framework to SES framework, shows that the problem of the complexity can be
understood by identifying and understanding the variables with best patterns of interactions that
explain the success and unsuccessful situations across the case studies. It was identified that 10
out of 60 variables are constant which means that they explain little about the complexity.
However, they justify that the reason why each case is not unique. The problem of the complexity
is explained by the variables whose variance is greater than zero (0). Thus, the blue print solutions
cannot work to solve the complex problem of the CPRs. The analysis of the variable interactions
and formulation of patterns of interactions which affect the realized outcomes, shows that each
case study has its own configuration of variable interactions and results. In this work, 33 variables
were identified as the most explicative of the successful and unsuccessful of the community forests
in Mexico, and they generate good performances in successful case studies than in unsuccessful
case studies. The policy analysis must be based on the configuration of these variables in each case
study to advise accurate institutions for having good results from unsuccessful case studies and
maintaining better performance of the successful case studies.

118
Research contribution and conclusions
Research contribution
The contribution of this research work is divided in four points which are the followings:

First, this research work presents the analysis of the transition of the IAD framework to the SES
framework and how this transition helped to identify the complexity problem of the CPRs. Besides
of that the IAD and SES framework have played important role in solving the problems related to
the CPRs management, their use to solve those complex problems of the CPRs like community
forests is still in ambiguity. This is because of the difficulty of understanding those processes that
lead to resource improvement or destruction. Thus, to study the transition of the IAD framework
to SES framework solve this ambiguity by:

i) identifying the reasons why E. Ostrom transited from IAD framework to SES. Thus, it
is easier to decide between these frameworks which one to use to a problem related to
the identified reasons;
ii) identifying an abstract reflection between the development of IAD framework to SES
framework and the CPRs management. The E. Ostrom, 2009, postulate is “the most
CPRs like the community forests are complex and their destruction is caused by
misunderstanding of the processes that lead to resource improvement or destruction.”
Thus, this work identifies how the development of IAD framework to SES framework
reflects the complexity embedded into the CPRS.
iii) identifying how the development and transition of IAD framework to SES framework
consist of the methodological development which easily helps to understand the
problem of the complexity of the CPRs. To say that most of CPRs are complex is
usually common but to identify how, is very difficult. Hence, the study of the IAD
framework and its transition to SES framework determined how these frameworks were
developed and converted into simple frameworks, easy to be understood. This helps to
easily understand the reflected complexity of the CPRS.
Second, by the study of the case studies of the community forests of Mexico, this research work
presents a simplified method of identifying the variables relevant to explain the complex processes
of variable interactions and patterns of the interactions that lead to successful or unsuccessful
situations in the case studies.

119
Third, by identifying that there are variables whose performances are constant which present
homogenous attributes across case studies, and the variables whose performances vary across the
case studies, and that they are the ones which determine the successful or unsuccessful conditions
in the case studies, this proves the reason why the policies about the CPRs management should not
fall into traps of considering each case as unique or advise the panaceas solutions.

Fourth and finally, this research work presents a meta-approach method by which the complexity
problem of the CPRs is identified and studied by basing on the transition of the IAD framework to
SES framework, and the research based on the case studies.

120
Conclusions
This research work led to conclude that the development and the transition of the IAD framework
to SES framework was guided by the complexity problem embedded into the CPRs governance.
E. Ostrom looked for a better response to the problems related to the CPRs governance in
comparison to the extent theories. She developed the IAD framework with the purpose of helping
the decision making in institutional analysis to successful governance of the CPRs. The IAD
framework helped to identify the institutional design and arrangement for successful of the CPRs
as complicated undertaking. This reflected the complexity problem related to CPRs management.
This complexity is attributable to the nature of the resources and/or the incentives related to the
use of these resources. The development of the IAD framework helped to solve the complex
problem of CPRs by explaining behavior and outcomes in complex institutional settings of the
collective actions. It was developed identifying the elements and general relationships among these
elements that one needs to consider for institutional analysis.

However, due to the shortcomings of the inefficiency evaluation of the impact of the attributes of
the resource system or units to situation action and to the realized outcomes, and the inefficiency
to facilitate the analysis of the robustness of the SESs, the SES framework was developed. This
framework has become an important tool for analysis of the problems related to the large CPRs
linked with social, economic, and political settings, and interactions with other resources. The
transition of the IAD to SES implies a meta-approach to deal with the complexity problem.
However, to prefer one framework to another depends on the nature of the research question.

Because SES framework was developed reflecting the complexity embedded into the SESs, it was
converted into a framework of universal elements that any analysis of the successful governance
of the SESs may include. However, this does not mean that all cases share common elements or
attributes. There are attributes that are common across the case studies and others vary from one
case to another and this variability among these elements is a critical attribute of the complexity.
Hence, the SES framework understandably communicates the complexity, helps to address the
complexity problem embedded into policy analysis of the SESs without falling into either of two
analytical and policy traps: (1) asserting “my case is unique.” or (2) deriving and recommending
policy blueprints or panaceas. To prove that each case study is not unique, there were identified
10 constant variables out of 60 variables. To show that the policy blueprints are harmful in the

121
complex environment, there were identified variables whose interactions and patterns of
interactions generate distinct behavior across the case studies. In this work, 33 out of 50 variables
were identified as the most significant to explain the successful or unsuccessful situations across
32 case studies.

The above results were got by carrying out the study based on the case studies in the context of
the SES framework. The identified 10 constant variables are: commons actions60, commons
aggregation, governance knowledge use, governance scale, governance system description,
governance system spatial extent, markets, and rights type, the actor group size variable, commons
spatial extent. These tell little about the complexity of the CPRs and prove that the policy analysts
should not be trapped into the consideration that each case is unique. To understand the complex
processes that lead to success or failure conditions, this analysis helps to identify variables whose
interactions and formation of patterns of interaction affect successful or unsuccessful conditions
in the case studies. The most of these variables are 33 variables out of 50 with high mean effect
sizes which implied high heterogeneous performances. The identification of a set of variables
whose interactions and patterns of interactions affect the outcomes and are affected by the
ecological, socio-economic and political settings also proved how the policy analysis must be on
configurations of each case study. Though, the displacement from successful to failure or the
inverse is a process of different steps which is maintained by the institutional arrangements based
on the particularity of each case study and the amplitude of success to failure status.

To consider community forests as a complex social-ecological system helps to identify the

ecological and social factors to the multiple levels that lead to successful or unsuccessful
conditions. This is achieved by considering which variable configurations lead to the successful
conditions in some cases and not in another. In this process, the SES framework is necessary to
constitute an integrative process of diagnosis which is different from the usual way of taking
general or universal solutions to resources use sustainability.

60
The common actions identified in all case studies are extraction, monitoring, conflict resolution, rule-making,
sanctioning, trading, and consumption. These actions are currently extended and acted under management plan by
large group size, with rights of access, use, exclusion, management, and alienation. The proportionality of these rights
is not identified, and according to SESMAD project, if there is not rights proportionality, there may be a lack of
motivation to contribute to the successful governance of the common resources, thus for example in this research there
is no habit of self-sanctions. Even if there are no self-sanctions, community forests are governed to the extent to which
conflicts are solved.

122
Future works
The future work related to this research will be based on the instantiation of the SES framework
to solve the complex socio-economic problems that are not yet responded by the current economic
theories. Some of them are:

• Mobility of the successful and unsuccessful conditions

• Ecological system of needs. The objective of this study is to show that the preferences
result from the interaction system of attributes of the needs, attributes of the governance
system and attributes of the actors.
• Ecological system of markets. The objective of this study is to show that the competition
in the market system is a natural system that permits the coexistence of different agents in
this system.

123
Bibliography
Adamsen II, P. B., 2000. A complex system design and management framework. Boca Raton
London New York Washington, D.C.: CRC Press LLC.

Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A. & Ostrom, E., 2003. DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR ROBUSTNESS
OF INSTITUTIONS IN SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS.

Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A. & Ostrom, E., 2004. A Framework to Analyze the Robustness of
Social-ecological Systems from an Institutional Perspective. Ecology and Society, 9(1), pp. 1-18.

Basurto, X. & Ostrom, E., 2009. The Core Challenges of Moving Beyond Garrett Hardin. Journal
of Natural Resources Policy Research, 1(3), pp. 255-259.

Benjamin, P., Lam, W. F., Ostrom, E. & Shivakoti, G., 1994. INSTITUTIONS, INCENTIVES, AND
IRRIGATION IN NEPAL, s.l.: U.S. Agency for International Development Global Bureau
Democracy Center .

Bergh, J. C. J. M. v. d., Button, K. J., Nijkamp, P. & Pepping, G. C., 1997. Meta-Analysis in
Environmental Economics. 12 ed. s.l.:SPRINGER-SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, B.V..

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T. & Rothstein, H. R., 2009. Introduction to Meta-
Analysis. First ed. s.l.:John Wiley & Sons, Ltd..

Bray, D. B., 2003. Mexican community forestry: Perspectives on common property enterprises
and asset-building. Paper presented at The International Conference on Rural Livelihoods,
Forests and Biodiversity. Bonn, Germany , http://www.cifor.org/publications/corporate/cd-
roms/bonn-proc/pdfs/papers/T7_FINAL_Bray.pdf.

Bray, D. B., Merino-Pérez, L. & Barry, D., 2005. The Community Forests of Mexico: Managing
for Sustainable Landscapes. First Edition ed. Austin : The University of Texas Press.

BRAY, D. B. et al., 2003. Mexico’s Community-Managed Forests as a Global Model for

Sustainable Landscapes. Conservation Biology, 17(3), p. 672–677.

Cox, M., Arnold, G. & Tomás, S. V., 2010. A Review of Design Principles for Community-based
Natural Resource Management. Ecology and Society, 15(4), p. 38.

124
Cumming, G., 2012. Understanding The New Statistics. Effect Sizes, Confidence Intervals, and
Meta-Analysis.. La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia: Routledge. Taylor & Francis Group,
LLC. New York, London. .

Cumming, G. S., 2014. Chapter 1. Theoretical Frameworks for the Analysis of Social–Ecological
Systems. In: C. U. Shoko Sakai, ed. Social–Ecological Systems in Transition . Springer Tokyo
Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London: http://www.springer.com/series/10124, pp. 3-21.

Gardner, R., Ostrom, E. & Walker, J. M., 1987. The Nature of the Common-Pool Resources
Problems. http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/670.

GIBSON, C. C., ANDERSSON, K., OSTROM, E. & SHIVAKUMAR, S., 2005. The Samaritan’s
Dilemma: The Political Economy of Development Aid. Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Gros, C., 2011. Complex and Adaptive Dynamical Systems. A Primer (Second Edition) ed.
Frankfurt: Springer .

Hess, C. & Ostrom, E., 2004. Studying Scholarly Communication: Can Commons Research and
the IAD Framework Help Illuminate Complex Dilemmas?.

Janssen, M. A. & Ostrom, E., 2006. GOVERNING SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS. In:

Handbook of Computational Economics, Volume 2.. s.l.:Elsevier B.V., pp. 1465-1509.

Kisser, L. L. & Ostrom, E., 1982. The Three Worlds of Action: A Metatheorical Synthesis of
Institutional Approaches. In: E. Ostrom, ed. Strategies of Political Inquiry . Beverly Hills : Sage
Publications , pp. 179-222.

Kitcher, P., 1993. THE ADVENCEMENT OF SCIENCE. SCIENCE WITHOUT

LEGEND,OBJECTIVITY WITHOUT ILLUSIONS. First ed. New York and Oxford : Oxford
University Press .

Koontz, T. M., Gupta, D., Mudliar, P. & Ranjan, P., 2015. Adaptive institutions in social-
ecological systems governance: A synthesis framework. e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o
l i c y 5 3, pp. 139-151.

125
Koricheva, J., Gurevitch, J. & Mengersen, K., 2013. Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and
Evolution. Princeton and Oxford : Princeton University Press.

Lara, A., 2015. Rationality and complexity in the work of Elinor Ostrom. International Journal of
the Commons, 9(2), pp. 573-594.

Levin, S. A., 1999. FRAGILE DOMINION. Complexity and the Commons. HELIX BOOKS ed.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: PERSEUS PUBLISHING.

Manning, D. T., Taylor, J. E. & Wilen, J. E., 2016. General Equilibrium Tragedy of the Commons.
Environ Resource Econ © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

McCormick, K., Salcedo, J., Peck, J. & Wheeler, A., 2017. SPSS® Statistics for Data Analysis
and Visualization. Indianapolis, Indiana: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..

McGinnis, M. D. & Ostrom, E., 2014. Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and
continuing challenges. Ecology and Society , 19(2)(30), pp. 06387-190230 .

Merino, L. & Martínez, A. E., April 2010. RIGHTS, PRESSURES AND CONSERVATION IN
FOREST REGIONS OF MEXICO. Conditions of communities in temperate forest regions of
Mexico.. Tempe, Arizona, Paper presented at the North American Conference of the International.

Moran, E. F. & Ostrom, E., 2005. Seeing the Forest and the Trees. Human-Environment
Interactions in Forest Ecosystems. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Moran, E. F., Ostrom, E. & Randolph, J. C., 2002. Ecological Systems and Multitier Human
Organization. ACT Publication.

Niazi, M. A. & Hussain, A., 2013. Cognitive Agent-based Computing-I. A Unified Framework for
Modeling Complex Adaptive Systems Using Agent-based & Complex Network-based Methods.
New York London: Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London.

Northrop, R. B. & Connor, A. N., 2013. Ecological Sustainability. Understanding Complex Issues.
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300; Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742: CRC Press. Taylor &
Francis Group.

126
Oakerson, R. J., 1984. A Model for the Analysis of the Common Property Problems. National
Research Council, Washington, DC, https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/8244.

Oakerson, R. J., 1990. Analysisng the commmons: A framework.

https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/handle/10535/498.

Ostrom, E., 1983. AN OVERVIEW OF RULE CONFIGURATIONS.

http://hdl.handle.net/10535/4525, Volume Doc. 51, EO key.

Ostrom, E., 1983. ANALYZING INSTITUTIONS FOR THE DELIVERY OF LOCAL

COLLECTIVE GOODS. Department of Political Science and Workshop in Political Theory and
Policy Analysis Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana.

Ostrom, E., 1983. THE ELEMENTS OF AN ACTION SITUATION.

http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/4080/.

Ostrom, E., 1985. Formulating the Elements of Institutional Analysis. Washington, D.C.,
Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University.

Ostrom, E., 1986. An agenda for the study of institutions. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht.
Printed in the Netherlands., Volume Public Choice 48, pp. 3-25.

Ostrom, E., 1989. The Rudiments of a Theory of the Origins, Survival, and Performance of
Common Property Institutions.. http://hdl.handle.net/10535/657.

Ostrom, E., 1990. GOVERNING THE COMMONS. The evolution of institutions for collective
action.. First Edition ed. s.l.:Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E., 1992. Crafting Institutions for Self-Governing Irrigation Systems. ICS PRESS Institute
for Contemporary Studies.

Ostrom, E., 1997. Commons. Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana
University, 513 North Park, Bloomington, Indiana 47408-3895 U.SA.Telephone (812) 855-
0441*Fax (812) 855-3150 •Internet: workshop@indiana.edu.

127
Ostrom, E., 2005. UNDERSTANDING INSTITUTIONAL DIVERSITY. 41 William Street,
Princeton, New Jersey 08540. In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 3 Market Place,
Woodstock, Oxfordshire OX20 1SY: P R I N C ETON UN I V E R S I TY P R E S S .

Ostrom, E., 2007. A DIAGNOSTIC APPROACH FOR GOING BEYOND PANACEAS. PNAS,
104(39), p. 15181–15187.

Ostrom, E., 2007a. Sustainable Social-Ecological Systems: An Impossibility?.

http://ssrn.com/abstract=997834.

Ostrom, E., 2007b. The Governance Challenge: Matching Institutions to the Structure of Social-
Ecological Systems. Forthcoming in The Princeton Guide to Ecology, ed. Simon Levin. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press..

Ostrom, E., 2007. DEVELOPING A METHOD FOR ANALYZING INSTITUTIONAL

CHANGE. Forthcoming 2008 in Assessing the Evolution and Impact of Alternative Institutional
Structures, ed. Sandra Batie and Nicholas Mercuro. London: Routledge Press..

Ostrom, E., 2008. The Challenge of Common-Pool Resources. Environment: Science and Policy
for Sustainable Development, 50(4), pp. 8-21.

Ostrom, E., 2009. A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological

Systems. Science, Volume 325, pp. 419-422.

Ostrom, E., 2010. The Challenge of Self-Governance in Complex Contemporary Environments.

Journal of speculative philosophy, pp. vol. 24, no. 4.

Ostrom, E., 2011. Background on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. The
Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 39(No. 1).

Ostrom, E. & Cox, M., 2010. Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for
social-ecological analysis.. Environmental Conservation, Volume 37 (4), pp. 451-463.

Ostrom, E., Dolsak, N. & J., M. B., 2003. The Commons in the New Millennium. Challenges and
Adaptation. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: The MIT Press.

128
Ostrom, E., Gardner, R. & Walker, J., 1991. Rules and Games. Institutions and the Common-Poool
Resources.. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.: http://hdl.handle.net/10535/4982.

Ostrom, E., Gardyner, R. & James, W., 1994. Rules, Games & Common-Pool Resources.
Michigan: the University of Michigan Press.

Ostrom, E., Huchfeldt, S. K., Schweik, C. M. & Wertime, M. B., 1993. A relational archive for
natural resources governance and management. 513 North Park, Indiana University, Bloomington
47408-3895 U.S.A, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis .

Ostrom, E., Janseen, M. A. & Poteete, A. R., 2012. Trabajar juntos: Acción Colectiva, Bienes
Communes y Múltiples Metodos en la Practica. Primera edicion en español ed. D.F, Mexico:
Fondo de Cultura Economica.

Ostrom, E. & Polski, M. M., 1999. An Institutional Framework for Policy Analysis and Design.

Ostrom, E., Poteete, A. R. & Janssen, M. A., 2012. Trabajar juntos. Acción colectiva, bienes
comunes y múltiples métodos en la práctica. s.l.:s.n.

Ostrom, V. & Ostrom, E., 1978. Public Goods and Public Choices. In Alternatives for Delivering
Public Services; Toward Improved Performance.. Workshop in Political Theory and Policy
Analysis, Indiana University.

Pigott, T. D., 2012. Advances in Meta-Analysis. s.l.:Springer New York Dordrecht Heidelberg
London.

Rivero, A. L. & Hakizimana, E., 2016. E. Ostrom’s SES Framework to Understand the Factors of
Successful and Unsuccessful Situation in the SES: A meta-analysis of community forests in
Mexico. Fronteiras: Journal of Social, Technological and Environmental Science, 05(2), pp. 103-
117.

SESMAD, 2014. Social-Ecological Systems Meta-Analysis Database: Background and Research

Methods.. [Online] Available at: http://sesmad.dartmouth.edu [Accessed 2014;2015;2016].

129
Srivastava, U., Shenoy, G. & Sharma, S., 2005. Quantitative Techniques for Managerial
Decisions. Second ed. New Delhi, Bangalore, Chennai, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jalandhar, Kolkata,
Lucknow, Mumbai, and Ranchi. : New Age International (P) Limited, Publishers.

Thiel, A., Adamseged, M. E. & Baake, C., 2015. Evaluating an instrument for institutional
crafting: How Ostrom’s social–ecological systems framework is applied. e n v i r o n m e n t a l s
c i e n c e & p o l i c y 5 3, pp. 152-164.

VanWey, L. K., Ostrom, E. & Meretsky, V., 2005. Theories Underlying the Study of Human-
Environment Interactions . In: E. F. M. a. E. Ostrom, ed. Seeing the Forest and the Trees Human-
Environment Interactions in Forest Ecosystems. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England:
The MIT Press, pp. 38-71.

Wilson, Low, Constanza & Ostrom, 1998. Scale Misperceptions And The Spatial Dynamics Of A
Social-Ecological System. http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/.

Zhao, Q. & Wen, Z., 2012. Integrative networks of the complex social-ecological systems.
Procedia Environmental Sciences 13, pp. 1383-1394.

130
Bibliography of the case studies
EnrÍquez, M. E. V., 2011. Conservation of the Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve, Chiapas: A
women's issue. Development, 54(4), pp. 473-479.

Acosta-Urdapilleta, L. et al., 2014. Isolation of Wild Edible Mycorrhizal Mushrooms. Journal of

Chemical, Biological and Physical Sciences. An International Peer Review E-3 Journal of
Sciences, 4(5), pp. 35-40.

Aguascalientes-IMAE, 2006. Estudio Técnico Justificativo: Área de Protección del Águila Real
(Aquila chrysaetos) de la Serranía de Juan Grande en el Ejido Palo Alto, municipio de El Llano,
Aguascalientes, México., Aguascalientes : s.n.

Aguascalientes-IMAE, 2010. Área de Protección del Águila Real [Golden Eagle Protection Area].
State Ministry of the Environment (IMAE), Aguascalientes State Government., Aguascalientes:
http://www.aguascalientes.gob.mx/imae/recursosbioticos/aguila.aspx.

Aguascalientes-IMAE, 2010. Monitoreo Biológica [Biological Monitoring]. State Ministry of the

Environment (IMAE), Aguascalientes State Government., Aguascalientes:
http://www.aguascalientes.gob.mx/imae/recursosbioticos/monbio.aspx.

Alonso, M. M., Pardo, G. L., Zamora, J. G. & Bertha, P. V., 2010. La gestión comunitaria de
recursos naturales y ecoturísticos en la Sierra Norte de Oaxaca. Primera ed. Ciudad de México:
UNAM Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México IIEc.

Anderson, E. N. & Anderson, B., 2011. Development and the Yucatec Maya in Quintana Roo:
some successes and failures. Journal of Political Ecology, Volume 18.

Antinori, C. & Bray, D. B., 2004. Concepts and Practices of Community Forest Enterprises:
Economic and Institutional Perspectives from Mexico.
https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/handle/10535/340.

ANTINORI, C. & BRAY, D. B., 2005. Community Forest Enterprises as Entrepreneurial Firms:
Economic and Institutional Perspectives from Mexico. World Development, 33(9), p. 1529–1543.

131
Antinori, C. & Garcia-Lopez, G. A., 2008. Cross-Scale Linkages in Common-Pool Resource
Management: The Evolution of Forest Associations in the Mexican Forest Commons. University
of Gloucester, Cheltenham, England, U.K, http://are.berkeley.edu/~cmantinori/AntGarV5.pdf.

Arroyo-Rodrıguez, V., Aguirre, A., Benıtez-Malvido, J. & Mandujano, S., 2007. Impact of rain
forest fragmentation on the population size of a structurally important palm species: Astrocaryum
mexicanum at Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. B I O L O G I C A L C O N S E RVAT I ON, Volume 138, p.
1 9 8 –2 0 6.

ARROYO-RODRIGUEZ, V. & MANDUJANO, S., 2006. The importance of tropical rain forest
fragments to the conservation of plant species diversity in Los Tuxtlas, Mexico.. Biodiversity and
Conservation, Springer 2006, Volume 15, p. 4159–4179.

Asbjornsen, H. & Ashton, M. S., 2002 . Perspectives on Community-Based Forest Management

in Oaxaca, Mexico:A Synthesis. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 15(1).

Asbjornsen, H. & Ashton, M. S., 2002. Community Forestry in Oaxaca, Mexico. Journal of
Sustainable Forestry, 15(1).

Barraza, L., M, I. R., Bodenhorn, B. & Adame, M. P. C., 2004. RAICES DE ÉXITO: UNA
EXPLORACIÓN INTERDISCIPLINARIA Y COMPARATIVA DE PROYECTOS
AMBIENTALES EN COMUNIDADES FORESTALES DE MÉXICO.
https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/1442/Barraza_Raices_040512_Paper55
8.pdf?sequence=1.

Barsimantov, J. & Antezana, J. N., 2012. Forest cover change and land tenure change in Mexico’s
avocado region: Is community forestry related to reduced deforestation for high value crops?.
Applied Geography, Volume 32, pp. 844-853.

Barsimantov, J. & Kendall, J., 2012. Community Forestry, Common Property, and Deforestation
in Eight Mexican States. The Journal of Environment & Development, 21(4).

Barsimantov, J., Racelis, A., Barnes, G. & DiGiano, M., 2010. Tenure, tourism and timber in
Quintana Roo, Mexico: land tenure changes in forest ejidos after agrarian reforms. International
Journal of the Commons, 4(1), pp. 293-318.

132
Barsimantov, J., Racelis, A., Biedenweg, K. & DiGiano, M., 2011. When collective action and
tenure allocations collide: Outcomes from community forests in Quintana Roo, Mexico and Petén,
Guatemala. Land Use Policy, Volume 28, pp. 343-352.

Berget, C., Duran, E. & Bray, D. B., 2015. Participatory Restoration of Degraded Agricultural
Areas Invaded by Bracken Fern (Pteridium aquilinum) and Conservation in the Chinantla Region,
Oaxaca, Mexico. Hum Ecol, Volume 43, p. 547–558.

Bocco, G., Velázquez, A. & Torres, A., 2000. Ciencia, comunidades indígenas y manejo de
recursos naturales. Un caso de investigación participativa en México. Interciencia, 25(2), pp. 64-
70.

Bolland, L. P., Maldonado, J. A. C., González, V. E. E. & Koh, J. T. M., 2005. X-Maben , s.l.:
http://www.conabio.gob.mx/institucion/proyectos/resultados/Xmaben%20Folleto%20Encuestas
BJ013.pdf.

Bost, J., 2014. Persea schiedeana: A High Oil “Cinderella Species” Fruit with Potential for
Tropical Agroforestry Systems. Sustainability, Volume 6, pp. 99-111.

Bray, D. B., 2003. Mexican community forestry: Perspectives on common property enterprises
and asset-building.. http://www.cifor.org/publications/corporate/cd-roms/bonn-
proc/pdfs/papers/t7_final_bray.pdf.

Bray, D. B., 2003. Mexican community forestry: Perspectives on common property enterprises
and asset-building. Paper presented at The International Conference on Rural Livelihoods,
Forests and Biodiversity. Bonn, Germany , http://www.cifor.org/publications/corporate/cd-
roms/bonn-proc/pdfs/papers/T7_FINAL_Bray.pdf.

Bray, D. B. et al., 2008. Tropical Deforestation, Community Forests, and Protected Areas in the
Maya Forest. Ecology and Society, 13(2), p. 56.

Bray, D. B., Merino-Pérez, L. & Barry, D., 2005. The Community Forests of Mexico: Managing
for Sustainable Landscapes. First Edition ed. Austin : The University of Texas Press.

BRAY, D. B. et al., 2003. Mexico’s Community-Managed Forests as a Global Model for

Sustainable Landscapes. Conservation Biology, 17(3), p. 672–677.

133
Bray, D. B. & Velazquez, A., 2009. From Displacement-Based Conservation to Place-Based
conservation. Conservation and Society , 7(1), pp. 11-14.

Bray, D. et al., 2008. A new conservation and Develpoment Frontier: Community Protected Areas
in Oaxaca, Mexico.. Current Conservation .

Bray, D., Duran, E. & Oscar, A. M.-G., 2012. Beyond harvests in the commons: multi-scale
governance and turbulence in indigenous/community conserved areas in Oaxaca, Mexico.
International Journal of the Commons, 6(2), p. 151–178.

Camacho, I. d. C. C. & Martin, G., 2008. Community Conserved Areas in North Mesoamerica: A
review of status and needs. Global Diversity Foundation, Mesoamerica. , p. 61.

Camille, M. A. & Gordon, C. R., 2010. The Mexican Common Property Forestry Sector.
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, UCB, UC Berkeley.

Cano-Díaz, V. C., Cortina-Villar, S. & Soto-Pinto, L., 2015. La construcción de la acción colectiva
en una comunidad del Área Natural Protegida: La Frailescana, Chiapas, México.. Argumentos
http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0187-57952015000100005,
http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=59540679005, 28(77), pp. 79-95.

Chapela, F., 2015. The Challenge of Crafting Institutions for the Commons: The Case of
Community Forestry Support Programs in Mexico 2003-2008. Journal of Agricultural Science
and Technology B 5, pp. 347-356.

Chávez Ballado, G., 2007. Percepción del ecosistema por la comunidad de San Crisanto en
Yucatán de acuerdo con su actividad. Cuicuilco, 14(39), pp. 99-114.

CONANP, 2006. Certificado del Área de Protección del Águila Real de la Serranía de Juan
Grande [Certificate of the Serrania de Juan Grande Golden Eagle Protection Area]. National
Commission on Natural Protected Areas (CONANP) Certificado -76/2006., s.l.:
http://www.aguascalientes.gob.mx/.

CONANP, 2008. Programa de Acción para la Conservación de la Especie: Águila real (Aquila
chrysatoes) [Program of Action for the Conservation of the Species: Golden eagle]. National
Commission on Natural Protected Areas (CONANP). , s.l.: s.n.

134
CONANP, 2009. Ficha de Identificación: Aguila Real [Identification Sheet: Golden Eagle].
National Commission on Natural Protected Areas (CONANP). , s.l.:
http://www.conanp.gob.mx/pdf_especies/aguila_real.pdf.

Corbera, E. & Adger, W. N., 2004. The Equity and Legitimacy of Markets for Ecosystem Services:
Carbon forestry activities in Chiapas, Mexico.
https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/1267/Corbera_Equity_040527_Paper20
6.pdf?sequence=1.

Cortina, S., 2006. Survival of the forests and the common property in the highlands of Chiapas,
Mexico. https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/.

Cortina, S. et al., 2004. La deforestación en ejidos de Los Altos de Chiapas, México y las áreas
de uso común.
https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/1969/Cortina_Deforestacion_040511_P
aper167d.pdf?sequence=1.

Cronkleton, P., Bray, D. B. & Medina, G., 2011. Community Forest Management and the
Emergence of Multi-Scale Governance Institutions: Lessons for REDD+ Development from
Mexico, Brazil and Bolivia. Forests , Volume 2, pp. 451-473.

Cuevas-Arias, C. T., Vargas, O. & Rodríguez, A., 2008. Solanaceae diversity in the state of Jalisco,
Mexico. Diversidad de la familia Solanaceae en el estado de Jalisco, México. Revista Mexicana
de Biodiversidad, 79(1), pp. 67-79.

Dalle, S. P., Blois, S. d., Caballero, J. & Johns, T., 2006. Integrating analyses of local land-use
regulations, cultural Integrating analyses of local land-use regulations, cultural the success of
community-based conservation. Forest Ecology and Management, Volume 222, pp. 370-383.

Díaz, M. d. C. L. & Rosano, C. M., 2002. THE COLLECTIVE AND THE INDIVIDUAL:
SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CHALLENGES TO THE SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF
PROTECTED AREAS IN CHIAPAS, MEXICO. https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/ consulted on
13.05.2014.

135
DiGiano, M., Ellis, E. & Keys, E., 2013. Changing Landscapes for Forest Commons: Linking Land
Tenure with Forest Cover Change Following Mexico’s 1992 Agrarian Counter-Reforms. Human
Ecology. Springer Science+Business Media New York, Issue 41, pp. 707-723.

DURAND, L. & LAZOS, E., 2004. Colonization and tropical deforestation in the Sierra Santa
Marta, Southern Mexico. Environmental Conservation, 31(1), pp. 11-21.

Durand, L. & Lazos, E., 2008. The Local Perception of Tropical Deforestation and its Relation to
Conservation Policies in Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve, Mexico. Springer Science + Business
Media, LLC 2008, Volume 36, p. 383–394.

DURAN, E., BRAY, D., VELAZQUEZ, A. & LARRAZABAL, A., 2011. Multi-Scale Forest
Governance, Deforestation, and Violence in Two Regions of Guerrero, Mexico. World
Development. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.08.018 or www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev, 39(4),
pp. 611-619.

Ellis, E. A. et al., 2015. Endurance and Adaptation of Community Forest Management in Quintana
Roo, Mexico. Forests, Volume 6, pp. 4295-4327.

Ellis, E. A. et al., 2015. Endurance and Adaptation of Community Forest Management in Quintana
Roo, Mexico. Forests, Issue 6, pp. 4295-4327.

Ellis, E. A. & Porter-Bolland, L., 2008. Is community-based forest management more effective
than protected areas? A comparison of land use/land cover change in two neighboring study areas
of the Central Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management, Issue 256, p. 1971–
1983.

Ericson, J. A., 2006. A participatory approach to conservation in the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve,
Campeche, Mexico. Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 74, pp. 242-266.

FAO, 2001. The impact of forest policies and legislation on forest plantatioms. Report based on
the work of C. J. K. Perley. Forest Plantation Thematic Papers, Working Paper 9. Forest Resources
Development Service, Forest Resources Division. FAO, Rome (unpublished)..
http://www.fao.org/forestry.

136
Fregoso, A., Velázquez, A., Bocco, G. & Cortéz, G., 2001. The landscape approach in forest
management by the indigenous community of Nuevo San Juan Parancaricutiro, Michoacán,
Mexico. Boletín del lnstituto de Geografía, UNAM, Issue 46, pp. 58-77.

Frias, G. & Meredith, T., 2004. Resistance to Conservation in the Land of Zapata. Presented at
“The Commons in an Age of Global Transition: Challenges, Risks and Opportunities”, the Tenth
Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, Oaxaca, Mexico,
s.n.

García-Amado, L. R. et al., 2011. Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services: Equity and
additionality in a case study from a Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas, Mexico. Ecological Economics,
Volume 70, p. 2361–2368.

García-Amado, L. R., Pérez, M. R. & García, S. B., 2013. Motivation for conservation: Assessing
integrated conservation and development projects and payments for environmental services in La
Sepultura Biosphere Reserve, Chiapas, Mexico. Ecological Economics, Volume 89, pp. 92-100.

García-Amado, L. R. et al., 2012. Building ties: social capital network analysis of a forest
community in a biosphere reserve in Chiapas, Mexico. Ecology and Society.
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss3/art3/, 17(3).

Garcia-Lopez, G. A., 2013. Scaling up from the grassroots and the top down: the impacts of multi-
level governance on community forestry in Durango, Mexico. International Journal of the
Commons, 7(2), p. 406–431.

González, B. A., 2003. La Sierra Tarahumara, el bosque y los pueblos originarios: estudio de caso
de Chihuahua (México). https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/.

Guerra, E. H., 2015. Protecting forests, improving livelihoods – Community forestry in Mexico,
s.l.: http://www.fern.org/sites/fern.org/files/fern_community_forestry_mexico.pdf.

Haenn, N., 2000. “Biodiversity Is Diversity in Use”: Community-Based Conservation in the

Calakmul Biosphere Reserve. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia..

Hernandez Montiel, J., 2007. La Chinantla, fuente de agua, fuente de vida [The Chinantla, source
of water, source of life].. La Journada Ecologica..

137
Honey-Rosés, J., 2009. Illegal Logging in Common Property Forests. Society & Natural
Resources, 22(10).

Hoy, L. C. d., 2008. El aguila real, que adorna el escudo nacional, esta en peligro de extinction:
en Mexico no hay mas de 120 parejas reproductora , s.l.: s.n.

Ibarra, J. et al., 2011. When Formal and Market-Based Conservation Mechanisms Disrupt Food
Sovereignty: Impacts of Community Conservation and Payments for Environmental Services on
an Indigenous Community of Oaxaca, Mexico. International Forestry Review, 13(3), pp. 318-337.

ICCA, 2016. San Crisanto. An interview with Jose Ines Loria, Director de Operation, Ejido de
San Cristano, on July 6th 2009., s.l.: http://www.iccaregistry.org/en/explore/Mexico/san-crisanto.

IUCN, 2010. Worldwide ICCA Database: CCAs in Southern Mexico.

http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/cca_database_mexico.doc .

Jong, B. H. d., Masera, O., Olguın, M. & Martınez, R., 2007. Greenhouse gas mitigation potential
of combining forest management and bioenergy substitution: A case study from Central Highlands
of Michoacan, Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management, Volume 242, p. 398–411.

Klooster, D., 2000. Community Forestry and Tree Theft in Mexico: Resistence or Complicity in
Conservation?. Development and Change , Volume 31, pp. 281-305.

KLOOSTER, D., 2000. Institutional Choice, Community, and Struggle: A Case Study of Forest
Co-Management in Mexico. World Development-Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved, 28(1),
pp. 1-20.

López-Barrera, F., Manson, R. H. & Landgrave, R., 2014. Identifying deforestation attractors and
patterns of fragmentation for seasonally dry tropical forest in central Veracruz, Mexico. Land Use
Policy, Volume 41, p. 274–283.

Luján-Álvarez, C. C. et al., 2013. MULTIDIMENSIONAL STRATEGY FOR SUSTAINABLE

FORESTRY DEVELOPMENT IN THE FOREST EJIDO TETAHUICHI, CHIHUAHUA,
MÉXICO. Revista Forestal Baracoa, 32(2), pp. 25-30.

138
Luján-Álvarez, C. et al., 2015. Community forestry in Mexico: strategic model for the
empowerment and competitiveness in globalization. Community forestry in Mexico: strategic
model for the empowerment and competitiveness in globalization. Sociedad y Territorio, XV(49),
pp. 665-696.

Luz, F. R. & Ceccon, E., 2006. As expectativas educacionais dos estudantes de Getão Ambiental
no Colégio da Comunidade de Morelos, no México. Revista Ciências Administrativas, 12(2), pp.
139-147.

Maass, J. M. et al., 2005. Ecosystem Services of Tropical Dry Forests: Insights from Long-term
of Mexico. Ecology and Society , 10(1), p. 17.

Medinilla, E. E., Cruz, E., Lira, I. & Sánchez, I., 2004. Mamíferos de la Reserva de la Biosfera
“La Sepultura”, Chiapas, México. Rev. Biol. Trop., 52(1), pp. 249-259.

Mendez-Lopez, M. E., Garcı´a-Frapolli, E., Porter-Bolland, L. & Reyes-Garcia, V., 2015. From
Paper to Forest: Local Motives for Participation in Different Conservation Initiatives. Case Studies
in Southeastern Mexico. Environmental Management.

Mendez-Lopez, M. E. et al., 2014. Local participation in biodiversity conservation initiatives: A

comparative analysis of different models in South East Mexico. Environmental Management,
Volume 145, pp. 321-329.

Merino, L., 2000. SOCIAL DETERIORATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION

FOUR WOODLAND REGIONS IN GUERRERO STATE, MEXICO.
http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/.

Merino, L., 2000. SOCIAL DETERIORATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION

OF FOUR WOODLAND REGIONS IN GUERRERO STATE, MEXICO.
https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/ com=nsulted on 30 April 2014.

Merino, L., 2007. CONSERVACIÓN COMUNITARIA EN LA CUENCA ALTA DEL

PAPALOAPAN, SIERRA NORTE DE OAXACA. NuevaAntrop., Issue 1, pp. 1-74.

139
Merino, L. & Martínez, A. E., April 2010. RIGHTS, PRESSURES AND CONSERVATION IN
FOREST REGIONS OF MEXICO. Conditions of communities in temperate forest regions of
Mexico.. Tempe, Arizona, Paper presented at the North American Conference of the International.

Mitchell, R. E., 2008. El ejercicio de la democracia en dos comunidades forestales de la Sierra

Norte de Oaxaca, México. Desacatos, Issue 27, pp. 149-168.

Mitchell, R. E., 2008. El ejercicio de la democracia en dos comunidades forestales de la Sierra

Norte, Oaxaca. Desacatos , Volume 27, pp. 149-168.

Negrete-Yankelevich, S., Porter-Bolland, L., Blanco-Rosas, J. L. & Barois, I., 2013. Historical
Roots of the Spatial, Temporal, and Diversity Scales of Agricultural Decision-Making in Sierra de
Santa Marta, Los Tuxtlas. Environmental Management , Volume 52, pp. 45-60.

Nieratka, L. R., Bray, D. B. & Mozumder, P., 2015. Can Payments for Environmental Services
Strengthen Social Capital, Encourage Distributional Equity, and Reduce Poverty?. Conservation
and Society, 13(4), pp. 345-355.

OCHOA-GAONA, S., GONZÁLEZ-ESPINOSA, M., MEAVE, J. A. & BON, V. S.-D., 2004.

Effect of forest fragmentation on the woody flora of the highlands of Chiapas, Mexico.
Biodiversity and Conservation , Volume 13, pp. 867-884.

Orozco-Quintero, A., 2010 . Community-based enterprises and the commons: the case of San Juan
Nuevo Parangaricutiro, Mexico. International Journal of the Commons, 4(1), pp. 8-35.

Orozco-Quintero, A. & Davidson-Hunt, I., 2010. Community-based enterprises and the commons:
the case of San Juan Nuevo Parangaricutiro, Mexico. International Journal of the Commons, 4(1),
p. 8–35 .

Ortega-Huerta, M. A. & Kral, K. K., 2007. Relating Biodiversity and Landscape Spatial Patterning
to Land Ownership Regimes in Northeastern Mexico. Ecology and Society, 12(2).

Ortiz, G. & Merino, L., 2011 . Commons Theory and Collective Forest Property in Mexico. When
formal recognition of local rights is important, but not enough. https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/.

140
Paré, L. & García, H., 2015. RESERVAS CAMPESINAS EN LA REGIÓN DE LOS TUXTLAS
Y LA SIERRA DE SANTA MARTA. Experiencias comunitarias para una política integral de
conservación en áreas protegidas. http://anea.org.mx/docs/Garcia-ArtResCampeStaMarta.pdf.

Payne, R., 2002. Community Forestry and the Politics of Agrarian Reform in the Chimalapas,
Oaxaca. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 15(1), pp. 95-112.

Perez-Verdin, G., Kim, Y.-S., Hospodarsky, D. & Tecle, A., 2009. Factors driving deforestation
in common-pool resources in northern Mexico. Environmental Management, Volume 90, pp. 331-
340.

Proselva Tropical de Quintana Roo, S., Ocubre del 2010. Manifestacion de Impacto Ambiental,
modalidad particular del Ejido NARANJAL PONIENTE, Quintana Roo, para el aprovechamiento
persistente en 7,500 has de sus recursos naturales maderables., s.l.:
http://sinat.semarnat.gob.mx/dgiraDocs/documentos/qroo/estudios/2010/23QR2010FD079.pdf.

Ramos, A. A., Merino, S. S. & Morales, M. F., 2010. Gestión forestal communitaria en Ixtlán de
Juárez, México. Proyecto financiado por la CONAFOR , Oaxaca : Universidad de la Sierra Juárez
.

Ríos-Cortez, A., Torres-Pérez, J., Gómez-Guerrero, A. & Navarro-Martínez, A., 2012.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FOREST MANAGEMENT AND SOCIOECONOMIC
WELFARE IN TWO QUINTANA ROO EJIDOS. Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y
del Ambiente, 18(2), pp. 251-259.

Rodriguez-Piñeros, S., Focht, W., Lewis, D. K. & Montgomery, D., 2011. Incorporating Values
into Community-Scale Sustainable Forest Management Plans: An Application of Q Methodology.
Small-scale Forestry, Volume 11, p. 167–183.

Rodriguez-Piñeros, S. & Lewis, D. K., 2013. Analysis and deliberation as a mechanism to assess
changes in preferences for indicators of sustainable forest management: A case study in Puebla,
Mexico. Environmental Management, Volume 128, pp. 52-61.

Rodríguez-Piñeros, S. & Mayett-Moreno, Y., 2015. Forest owners’ perceptions of ecotourism:

Integrating community values and forest conservation, s.l.: AMBIO.

141
Román-Dañobeytia, F. J., Levy-Tacher, S. I., Macario-Mendoza, P. & Zúñiga-Morales, J., 2014.
Redefining Secondary Forests in the Mexican Forest Code: Implications for Management,
Restoration, and Conservation. Forests , Issue 5, pp. 978-991.

Ruiz-Aquino, F. et al., 2014. Ecuaciones de biomasa aérea para Quercus laurina y Q. crassifolia
en Oaxaca. Aerial biomass equations for Quercus laurina and Q. crassifolia in Oaxaca. Madera y
Bosques, 20(2), pp. 33-48.

Seanz, J. E. S., 2014. 3 UACH INFORME , Chihuahua :

http://www.uach.mx/planeacion/2017/02/17/tercer_informe_con_isbn.pdf.

SEMARNAT, 2002. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2001 Protección

Ambiental – Especies Nativas de México de Flora y Fauna Silvestres – lista de species en riesgo.,
s.l.: s.n.

Speelman, E. et al., 2014. From coping to adaptation to economic and institutional change –
Trajectories of change in land-use management and social organization in a Biosphere Reserve
community, Mexico. Land Use Policy, Volume 41, pp. 31-44.

Taylor, P. L., 2000. Producing More with Less? Community Forestry in Durango, Mexico in an
Era of Trade Liberalization. Rural Sociology, 65(2), pp. 253-274.

Taylor, P. L., 2005. New organizational strategies in community forestry in Durango, Mexico. In:
D. Bray, L. Merino-Perez & D. Barry, eds. The community forests of Mexico: managing for
sustainable landscapes. Austin, Texas, USA: University of Texas Press, pp. 125-149.

Toledo-Aceves, T., Purata-Velarde, S. & Peters, C. M., 2009 . Regeneration of commercial tree
species in a logged forest in the Selva Maya, Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management, Volume
258 , p. 2481–2489.

Torres, A. B., C., M. D., Margaret, S. & C., L. J., 2013. Payments for ecosystem services and rural
development: Landowners' preferencesandpotentialparticipationinwesternMexico. Ecosystem
Services, Volume 6, p. 72–81.

142
Torres, A. B. & Lovett, J. C., 2013. Using basal area to estimate aboveground carbon stocks in
forests: La Primavera Biosphere’s Reserve, Mexico. Forestry. An International Journal of Forest
Research, Volume 86, p. 267–281.

Torres, A., Douglas C. MacMillan, Margaret Skutsch & Jon C. Lovett, 2013. The valuation of
forest carbon services by Mexican citizens: the case of Guadalajara city and La Primavera
biosphere reserve. Regional Environmental Change, 13(3), p. 661–680.

TORRES-ROJO, J. M., GUEVARA-SANGINÉS, A. & BRAY, D. B., 2005. CHAPTER 12. The
Managerial Economics of Sustainable Community Forestry in Mexico: A Case Study of El Balcón,
Técpan, Guerrero . In: D. B. BRAY, L. MERINO-PÉREZ & D. BARRY, eds. The Community
Forests of Mexico . s.l.:University of Texas Press, pp. 272-302.

Torres-Rojo, J. M., Guevara-Sanginés, A. & Bray, D. B., 2007. La economía de la administración

del manejo comunitario forestal en México: un estudio de caso en El Balcón, Tecpan, Guerrero.
In: D. Bray, L. M. Pérez & D. Barry, eds. Los bosques comunitarios de México. Manejo sustentable
de paisajes forestales . Mexico City :
http://www2.inecc.gob.mx/publicaciones/consultaPublicacion.html?id_pub=532, pp. 341-373.

Valdez, G. V. V., Hansen, E. N. & Bliss, J., 2012. Factors Impacting Marketplace Success of
Community Forest Enterprises: The Case of TIP Muebles, Oaxaca, Me´xico. Small-scale Forestry,
Volume 11, pp. 339-363.

Valdez, G. V. V., Hansen, E. N. & Bliss, J., 2012. Factors Impacting Marketplace Success of
Community Forest Enterprises: The Case of TIP Muebles, Oaxaca, Mexico. Small-scale Forestry,
Volume 11, pp. 339-363.

Vargas-Cetina, G., 2001. Postcolonial sites and markets: Indigenous organizations in Chiapas,
Mexico. Tamara : Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science, p. 68.

Vidal, N. G., 2005. Forest company-community agreements in Mexico: identifying successful

models , Washington, D.C.: Forest Trends (http://forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_118.pdf).

143
Villatoro, A. M. T. & Yáñez, A. H., 2003. Case studies on adaptation of the scorecard: Montes
azules and el Ocote biosphere reserves.
https://rmportal.net/library/content/nric/946.pdf/at_download/file .

Wakild, E., 2007. Resources, Communities, and Conservation: The creation of national parks in
revolutionary Mexico under president Lázaro Cárdenas, 1934-1940.
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/195077.

Wickwire, W. T. & Halberg, D. E., 2002. Developing a Community-Based Silvicultural System.

Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 15(1), pp. 51-66.

Wright, D. A. & Leighton, A. D., 2002. Forest Utilization in Oaxaca. Journal of Sustainable
Forestry, 15(1), pp. 67-79.

Zamora, J. G., Pardo, G. L., Villavicencio, B. P. & Alonso, M. M., 2010. La gestión comunitaria
de recursos naturales y ecoturísticos en la Sierra Norte de Oaxaca. Primera edición ed. Ciudad
Universitaria, Coyoacán: UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO.

Zuany, R. G. M., 2008. Dealing with Diversity in the Construction of Indigenous Construction of
Indigenous of Oaxaca. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 27(3), pp. 351-367.

144
Annexes
Table 15: 60 variables most characterizing the community forests

Data
Variables type Component Attachment Theme
Actor adaptive capacity Ordinal Actor Component Interaction Outcomes
Actor group boundary clarity Categorical Actor Component Interaction Institutions
Actor group boundary fuzziness Categorical Actor Component Interaction Institutions
Actor group coordination Categorical Actor Case Component Institutions
Actor group size Interval Actor Component Interaction Incentives
Actor group trust Ordinal Actor Case Component Social Capital
Biodiversity trend Ordinal Resource System Component Interaction Outcomes
Collective action Ordinal Actor Component Interaction Outcomes
Commons actions Categorical Actor Component Interaction Institutions
Commons aggregation Categorical Resource Unit Case Component Basic
Environmental
Ordinal Case Component Biophysical
Commons boundaries Common
Commons boundary negotiability Ordinal Actor Component Interaction Institutions
Environmental
Ordinal Component Interaction Outcomes
Commons condition trend Common
Commons feedback speed fix Ordinal Actor Component Interaction Incentives
Commons feedback speed use Ordinal Actor Component Interaction Incentives
Commons feedback visibility fix Ordinal Actor Component Interaction Incentives
Commons feedback visibility use Ordinal Actor Component Interaction Incentives
Commons political power Ordinal Actor Component Interaction Context
Environmental
Interval Case Component Spatial
Commons spatial extent Common
Local Resource User
Ordinal Case Component Social Capital
Community Participation Group
Conflict resolution Binary Actor Component Interaction Enforcement
Costs of exit Binary Actor Case Component Incentives
Cultural dependence Ordinal Actor Component Interaction Incentives
Resource Unit,
Ordinal Component Interaction Outcomes
Cultural services condition Resource System
Ecosystem service management Categorical Actor Component Interaction Institutions
Resource Unit/
Binary Component Interaction Institutions
Ecosystem services markets Resource System
Effect confidence Ordinal Actor Component Interaction Outcomes
Environmental monitoring Ordinal Actor Component Interaction Enforcement
External monitoring Binary Actor Component Interaction Enforcement
External recognition Ordinal Governance System Component Interaction External
External support Ordinal Governance System Component Interaction Institutions
Institutional
Categorical Governance System Case Component Biophysical
Governance knowledge use Linkage
Governance scale Categorical Governance System Case Component Basic

145
Governance strictness trend Ordinal Governance System Component Interaction Institutions
Governance system description Text Governance System Case Component Basic
Governance system effect Categorical Governance System Component Interaction Outcomes
Governance system spatial extent Text Governance System Case Component Spatial
Incentive type Categorical Actor Component Interaction Institutions
Institutional diversity Ordinal Governance System Component Interaction Institutions
Interest heterogeneity Ordinal Actor Case Component Heterogeneity
Inter-group trust Ordinal Governance System Component Interaction Social Capital
Leadership Categorical Actor Case Component Leadership
Leadership accountability Ordinal Actor Case Component Leadership
Leadership authority Ordinal Actor Case Component Leadership
Resource Unit/
Binary Component Interaction Institutions
Markets Resource System
Multiple levels Categorical Governance System Component Interaction Institutions
Participation in environmental
Ordinal Actor Component Interaction Enforcement
monitoring
Participation in rule making Ordinal Actor Component Interaction Context
Participation in social monitoring
Ordinal Actor Component Interaction Enforcement
(enforcement)
Past collaboration Ordinal Actor Case Component Social Capital
Personal communication Ordinal Actor Case Component Social Capital
Perverse incentives Binary Actor Component Interaction Incentives
Proportionality (of costs and benefits) Binary Actor Case Component Incentives
Resource Unit/
Ordinal Component Interaction Outcomes
Provision services condition Resource System
Resource Unit/
Ordinal Component Interaction Outcomes
Regulating services condition Resource System
Rights type Categorical Actor Component Interaction Institutions
Self-monitoring Binary Actor Component Interaction Enforcement
Self-Sanctions Categorical Actor Component Interaction Enforcement
Transaction costs Ordinal Governance System Component Interaction Institutions
User group well-being change Ordinal Actor Component Interaction Outcomes
Source: Selected form the SESMA

Table 16: Variable performances in successful case studies

C C C C C C C C C C C C C
Variables C1 C3 C6 C9 11 12 13 14 16 18 20 21 22 24 29 31 32
Actor adaptive capacity 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 1 3 2 2 2 3
Actor group boundary
clarity 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3
Actor group boundary
fuzziness 1 1 1 1 1 1 (-) 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
Actor group
coordination 4 4 4 4 4 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3
Actor group trust 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 3
Biodiversity trend 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 3
Collective action 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 3

146
Commons boundaries 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Commons boundary
negotiability 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 1 2
Commons condition
trend 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3
Commons feedback
speed fix 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 3 3 2 3 2 1 2 2 3 3
Commons feedback
speed use 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2
Commons feedback
visibility fix 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3
Commons feedback
visibility use 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3
Commons political
power 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 3
Community
Participation 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 3
Conflict resolution 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Costs of exit 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cultural dependence 3 3 3 (-) 3 1 3 (-) 1 3 1 2 3 3 (-) 3 2
Cultural services
condition 3 3 3 (-) 3 3 3 (-) (-) 3 3 2 3 3 (-) (-) 2
Ecosystem service
management 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 0 2 2
Ecosystem services
markets 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
Effect confidence 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3
Environmental
monitoring 3 3 2 1 1 3 1 3 3 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 2
External monitoring 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
External recognition 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
External support 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 0
Governance strictness
trend 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 3
Governance system
effect 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 3
Incentive type 2 1 1 (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) 0 (-) 2 0 1 (-) (-) (-)
Institutional diversity 3 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 3
Interest heterogeneity 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1
Inter-group trust 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 1 2 3
Leadership 3 3 3 3 3 (-) 3 (-) 3 3 (-) 3 3 3 (-) (-) 3
Leadership
accountability 3 (-) 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 (-) (-) 2 2
Leadership authority 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 1 3 (-) 2 3
Multiple levels 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1
Participation in
environmental
monitoring 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 2 3
Participation in rule
making 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 1 2 3

147
 Participation in social
monitoring 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 1 3 2 2 3
Past collaboration 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 3 2 3 3
Personal communication 5 (-) 5 5 5 5 5 5 (-) 4 5 5 5 5 (-) (-) 5
Perverse incentives 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
Proportionality (of costs
and benefits) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (-) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Provision services
condition 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3
Regulating services
condition 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3
Self-monitoring 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3
Self-Sanctions 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 (-) 1
Transaction costs 2 (-) 3 2 2 1 3 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1
User group well-being
change 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3
Source: Own design based on the concept of E. Ostrom, 2007 & SESMAD, 2014

Table 17: Variable performance in unsuccessful case studies

C C C C C C C C C C
Variables C2 C4 C5 C7 C8 10 15 17 19 23 25 26 27 28 30
Actor adaptive capacity 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 1
Actor group boundary clarity 3 2 3 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3
Actor group boundary fuzziness 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Actor group coordination 1 2 4 3 4 3 1 2 4 1 1 2 3 3 3
Actor group trust 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Biodiversity trend 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1
Collective action 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Commons boundaries 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2
Commons boundary negotiability 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3
Commons condition trend 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1
Commons feedback speed fix 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2
Commons feedback speed use 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Commons feedback visibility fix 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2
Commons feedback visibility use 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Commons political power 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Community Participation 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 3
Conflict resolution 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1
Costs of exit 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
Cultural dependence 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 3
Cultural services condition 2 1 2 1 2 (-) 1 2 1 2 (-) 3 2 (-) 3
Ecosystem service management (-) 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1
Ecosystem services markets 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Effect confidence 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3
Environmental monitoring 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

148
 External monitoring 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
External recognition 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
External support 2 2 3 2 1 2 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 1 1
Governance strictness trend 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
Governance system effect 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Incentive type 1 1 1 1 (-) (-) 0 (-) 0 0 (-) (-) (-) 2 (-)
Institutional diversity 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 2
Interest heterogeneity 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1
Inter-group trust 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
Leadership 3 3 3 3 3 (-) 2 (-) 3 2 (-) 2 2 3 3
Leadership accountability (-) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (-) 1 2 (-) 2
Leadership authority 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (-) 3
Multiple levels 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 (-) (-) 1 1 1
Participation in environmental
monitoring 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
Participation in rule making 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
Participation in social monitoring 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
Past collaboration 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1
Personal communication (-) 2 5 (-) 5 (-) (-) 5 5 2 3 5 5 (-) (-)
Perverse incentives 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
Proportionality (of costs and
benefits) 1 1 1 0 1 (-) 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1
Provision services condition 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1
Regulating services condition 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
Self-monitoring 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1
Self-Sanctions 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Transaction costs (-) 3 3 1 2 (-) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
User group well-being change 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 (-) 1 2 2 2
Source: Own design based on the concept of E. Ostrom, 2007 & SESMAD, 2014

Table 18: Variable outcomes of the successful case studies

C C C C C C
Variables C1 C3 C6 C9 C11 C12 C13 C14 C16 C18 C20 21 22 24 29 31 32
Actor adaptive
capacity 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 1 3 2 2 2 3
Biodiversity trend 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 3
Collective action 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 3
Commons
condition trend 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3
Cultural services
condition 3 3 3 (-) 3 3 3 (-) (-) 3 3 2 3 3 (-) (-) 2
Effect confidence 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3
Governance system
effect 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 3
Provision services
condition 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3

149
Regulating services
condition 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3
User group well-
being change 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3
Total 31 31 23 27 31 30 26 28 28 23 31 22 25 25 21 20 29
Average 3.1 3.1 2.3 3.0 3.1 3.0 2.6 3.1 3.1 2.3 3.1 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.9

Source: Own design based on the concept of E. Ostrom, 2007 & SESMAD, 2014

Table 19: Variable outcomes of the unsuccessful case studies

Variables C2 C4 C5 C7 C8 C10 C15 C17 C19 C23 C25 C26 C27 C28 C30
Actor adaptive capacity 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 1
Biodiversity trend 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1
Collective action 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Commons condition trend 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1
Cultural services condition 2 1 2 1 2 (-) 1 2 1 2 (-) 3 2 (-) 3
Effect confidence 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3
Governance system effect 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Provision services
condition 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1
Regulating services
condition 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
User group well-being
change 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 (-) 1 2 2 2
Total 15 13 21 14 14 10 12 18 14 14 10 14 21 19 18
Average 1.5 1.3 2.1 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.11 1.8

Source: Own design based on the concept of E. Ostrom, 2007 & SESMAD, 2014

Figure 23: Distribution of successful and unsuccessful case studies labeled by case numbers
with 41 variables

150
Figure 24: Distribution of successful and unsuccessful case studies by using Multiple
Correspondence Analysis by XLSTAT

1.5

1
Obs10
Obs7
Obs4 Obs16
Obs26
Obs15 Obs14
0.5 Obs23
Obs25
Obs19 Obs3
Obs12
Obs1
Obs20
Obs11
Obs32
Obs8 Obs9
F2 (13.80 %)

Obs2
0
Obs13
Obs24
Obs29
-0.5 Obs17 Obs6
Obs27
Obs5
Obs22
Obs30 Obs21
Obs31
-1 Obs28
Obs18

-1.5
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
F1 (54.74 %)

Observations

Table 20: Variable discrimination measures

Dimension Mean

1 2

Actor group boundary clarity .317 .135 .226

Actor group boundary fuzziness .158 .021 .089
Actor group coordination .248 .161 .205
Actor group trust .831 .446 .639
Commons boundaries .135 .108 .122
Commons boundary negotiability .502 .030 .266
Commons feedback speed fix .587 .198 .393
Commons feedback speed use .769 .070 .420
Commons feedback visibility fix .549 .176 .363
Commons feedback visibility use .675 .070 .373
Commons political power .852 .530 .691
Community Participation .837 .601 .719
Cultural dependence .168 .181 .175

151
Ecosystem service management .590 .107 .349
Environmental monitoring .636 .391 .514
External support .076 .198 .137
Governance strictness trend .818 .360 .589
Incentive type .016 .130 .073
Institutional diversity .145 .667 .406
Interest heterogeneity .747 .406 .576
Inter-group trust .931 .568 .750
Leadership .187 .041 .114
Leadership accountability .655 .185 .420
Leadership authority .886 .226 .556
Participation in environmental monitoring .934 .418 .676
Participation in rule making .938 .300 .619
Participation in social monitoring (enforcement) .940 .406 .673
Past collaboration .844 .040 .442
Personal communication .205 .219 .212
Self-monitoring .409 .115 .262
Transaction costs .456 .209 .332
Active Total 17.042 7.715 12.379

Figure 25: Variable underlying patterns

152
Figure 26: Successful and Unsuccessful case studies labeled by case numbers

Table 21: Discrimination measures of variable best underlying patterns under

complex linear system context

Dimension Mean

1 2

Actor group boundary fuzziness .136 .037 .087

Actor group trust .798 .419 .609
Commons boundary negotiability .479 .028 .254
Commons feedback speed fix .572 .259 .415
Commons feedback speed use .716 .079 .397
Commons feedback visibility fix .534 .255 .395
Commons feedback visibility use .626 .113 .370
Commons political power .804 .496 .650
Community Participation .805 .524 .665
Ecosystem service management .560 .076 .318
Governance strictness trend .783 .405 .594
Interest heterogeneity .712 .416 .564
Inter-group trust .918 .528 .723
Leadership accountability .637 .214 .426
Leadership authority .859 .252 .555
Participation in environmental monitoring .897 .395 .646
Participation in rule making .922 .212 .567

153
Participation in social monitoring (enforcement) .929 .393 .661
Past collaboration .836 .034 .435
Self-monitoring .423 .095 .259
Transaction costs .421 .206 .314
Active Total 14.366 5.436 9.901

Figure 27: Variables with best underlying patterns

154