HSD: Collaborative Research: Social Complexity and the Management of the Commons

合作提案david bennate爱荷华大学paul robbins亚利桑那大学david mcginis蒙大拿州立大学billingings凯瑟琳克林爱荷华州立大学本研究将研究基于地点的决策导致共同持有的生态系统服务管理变化的机制。“公地”的广义定义是指在景观尺度上产生的服务，其价值超出了个人土地的空间界限。2003年，《科学》杂志出版了一期特刊，专门讨论加勒特·哈丁1968年发表的发人深省的文章《公地的悲剧》。贡献作者的结论是，社会可以，而且经常通过社会和机构组织来避免哈丁关于资源过度开发的最可怕的预言。人类将妥协、合作和迁就制度化，以产生理想和可持续的结果，对渔业、灌溉和空气污染等问题的管理日益被理解为可以采取集体行动。当社区对环境有共同的目标和看法时，最容易产生妥协、合作和迁就。随着新的利益相关者对传统上由完全不同的社区和群体管理的资源提出要求，人们对生态系统服务（如食物、清洁水、野生动物、娱乐机会和风景美景）的文化和经济需求正处于深刻的转变状态。最根本的问题不再是人类能否将解决当地和全球公地问题的办法制度化，而是什么推动了公地资源的价值、使用和管理方式的变化，以及这些变化对一个地区的社会、经济和生物物理特征产生了什么影响。这项研究将考虑驱动这些决策过程的内源性和外源性变化因素（例如，社会人口、经济、气候），从而更好地理解不同的和政治上分裂的社会经济选民决定新的权力配置和制定新的共同财产管理机构的方式。人们最感兴趣的是通过联盟和建立共识来组织起来，以增加他们的政治权力，扩大他们在资源分配决策中的发言权的过程。通过调查和访谈，本研究解决了以下基本问题：1)社会和经济群体对通过景观管理产生的经济和非经济服务的价值评估方式的差异；2)影响这些价值的内源性和外源性变化因素；3)个人、联盟和公共决策者之间的权力关系。将根据通过调查和面谈产生的数据开发统计模型和基于代理人的模型，以评价将人民的意愿转化为不断变化的土地使用做法的效力，从而评价生态系统服务的生产（即生产反映需求的程度）。将探讨基于地点的决策与生态系统服务生产之间关系的四种工作假设（最佳、滞后、偶发和紧急）。大黄石生态系统（GYE）为本研究提供了公共池生态系统服务的背景，但其结果将推广到其他基于群体的决策中，在这些决策中，个体试图通过合作和妥协来最大化自己的利益。更广泛的影响本研究旨在了解不同的和政治上分裂的社会经济选区如何解决新的权力配置和制定新的共同财产管理机构。这样的理解将为美国西部和其他地方正在发生的重要转型过程提供有价值的见解，在这些地方，高价值的以便利设施为基础的环境正在从传统的农业用途中出现。更实际的是，这项研究产生的数据和模型可用于评价当前自然资源管理做法的可持续性和效力，并确定妥协和建立共识的机会。最后，这项研究为教育新一代科学家提供了一个极好的机会，让他们了解挑战和可观的回报

Collaborative ProposalsSES-0624297David BennettUniversity of IowaSES-0624141Paul RobbinsUniversity of ArizonaSES-0624292David McGinnisMontana State University-BillingsSES-0624066Catherine KlingIowa State UniversityThis research will study the mechanisms by which place-based decision-making leads to changes in the management of commonly held ecosystem services. The "commons" is broadly defined to mean services produced at landscape-scales and valued beyond the spatial bounds of an individual's parcel of land. In 2003 a special issue of Science was published devoted to Garret Hardin's thought provoking 1968 article "The Tragedy of the Commons." The contributing authors concluded that society can, and often does, avoid Hardin's most dire predictions of resource overexploitation through social and institutional organization. Humans institutionalize compromise, cooperation, and accommodation to produce desirable and sustainable outcomes and the management of problems as far ranging as fisheries, irrigation, and air pollution are increasingly understood as amenable to collective action. Compromise, cooperation, and accommodation are most easily produced when communities share common objectives and views about the environment. Increased mobility and affluence has led to an era when cultural and economic demands for ecosystem services (e.g., food, clean water, wildlife, recreational opportunities and scenic beauty) are in a state of profound transition as new stakeholders make claims on resources traditionally managed by totally differing communities and constituencies. The fundamental question becomes not whether humans can institutionalize solutions to problems in their local and global commons, but what drives changes in the way common pool resources are valued, used and managed and what impact these changes have on the social, economic, and biophysical character of a region. This research will consider endogenous and exogenous agents of change (e.g., socio-demographic, economic, climatic) that drive these decision-making processes and, thus, develop a better understanding of the ways diverse and politically divided socio-economic constituencies come to settle on new power configurations and craft new common property management institutions. Of central interest are the processes by which humans organize through coalition and consensus building to increase their political power and amplify their own voice in resource allocation decisions. Through surveys and interviews this study addresses fundamental questions about: 1) Differences in the way social and economic groups value economic and non-economic services produced through the management of landscapes; 2) Endogenous and exogenous agents of change that affect these values; and 3) Power relationships among, individuals, coalitions, and public decision-makers. Statistical and agent-based models based on the data produced through surveys and interview, will be developed to evaluate the efficacy with which the will of the people is transformed into changing land use practices and, thus, the production of ecosystem services (i.e., how well production reflects demand). Four working hypotheses about the relation between place-based decision making and the production of ecosystem services will be explored (optimal, lagged, episodic, and emergent). The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) provides the setting for this investigation into common pool ecosystem services but the results of will be generalizable to other group-based decision-making where individuals attempt to maximize their own benefit through collaboration and compromise.Broader ImpactsThis study seeks to understand the way diverse and politically divided socio-economic constituencies settle on new configurations of power and craft new common property management institutions. Such an understanding will provide valuable insight into important transformational processes that are occurring throughout the U.S. West and other places where high-value amenity-based environments are emerging from traditional agricultural uses. More practically, the data and models produced by this research can be used to evaluate the sustainability and efficacy of current natural resources management practices and identify opportunities for compromise and consensus building. Finally, this research provides an excellent opportunity to educate a new generation of scientists on the challenges and considerable rewards