Advancing understanding of natural resource governance: a post-Ostrom research agenda

[en] Institutions are vital to the sustainability of social-ecological systems, balancing individual and group interests and coordinating responses to change. Ecological decline and social conflict in many places, however, indicate that our understanding and fostering of effective institutions for natural resource management is still lacking. We assess theoretical and methodological challenges facing positivist institutional analysis, focusing on natural resource governance according to Ostrom’s social-ecological systems (SES) framework. Rather than adding more variables, progress requires a clearer, more consistent approach to selecting, defining and measuring institutional elements; stronger links between theory and empirical research; a greater focus on mechanisms and causality; and the development and application of new methods, including quantitative approaches. Strengthening the connections between theory, models, and data suggests several promising avenues for advancing institutional analysis through the study of relationships between institutional structure, process, function, context, and outcomes.

Research center :

Luxembourg Centre for Socio-Environmental Systems (LCSES)

Disciplines :

Sociology & social sciences

Author, co-author :

Cumming, G.S.

Epstein, G.

Anderies, J.M.

Apetrei, C.I.

Baggio, J.

Bodin, Ö.

Chawla, S.

Clements, H.S.

Cox, M.

Egli, L.

More authors (10 more)

External co-authors :

yes

Language :

English

Title :

Advancing understanding of natural resource governance: a post-Ostrom research agenda

Publication date :

2020

Journal title :

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

ISSN :

1877-3435

eISSN :

1877-3443

Publisher :

Elsevier, Maryland Heights, Us mo

Volume :

Pages :

26 - 34

Peer reviewed :

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Additional URL :

https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1877343520300129

Available on ORBilu :

since 15 May 2025

Statistics

Number of views

37 (3 by Unilu)

Number of downloads

0 (0 by Unilu)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

109

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenCitations

OpenAlex citations

121

Bibliography

Isbell, F., Gonzalez, A., Loreau, M., Cowles, J., Diaz, S., Hector, A., Mace, G.M., Wardle, D.A., O'Connor, M.I., Duffy, J.E., Linking the influence and dependence of people on biodiversity across scales. Nature, 546, 2017, 65.
Ostrom, E., Understanding institutional diversity. 2005, Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, NJ.
Ostrom, E., Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. 1990, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Daw, T., Brown, K., Rosendo, S., Pomeroy, R., Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environ Conserv 38 (2011), 370–379.
Lubell, M., Governing institutional complexity: The ecology of games framework. Policy Stud J 41 (2013), 537–559.
Coase, R., The new institutional economics. Am Econ Rev 88 (1998), 72–74.
Hall, P.A., Taylor, R.C., Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Stud 44 (1996), 936–957.
Peters, B.G., Institutional theory in political science: The new institutionalism. 2011, Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
Rhodes, R.A., Binder, S.A., Rockman, B.A., The Oxford handbook of political institutions. 2008, Oxford University Press.
Boamah E, Frimpong, Polycentricity of urban watershed governance: Towards a methodological approach. Urban Stud 55 (2018), 3525–3544.
Binder, C., Hinkel, J., Bots, P., Pahl-Wostl, C., Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc, 18, 2013.
McGinnis, M.D., Ostrom, E., Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol Soc, 19, 2014.
Ostrom, E., A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 352 (2009), 419–422 Seminal article presenting and summarizing the social-ecological systems framework.
Partelow, S., A review of the social-ecological systems framework: applications, methods, modifications, and challenges. Ecol Soc, 23, 2018.
Cox, M., Arnold, G., Tomás, S.V., A Review of Design Principles for Community-based Natural Resource Management. Ecol Soc, 15, 2010, 38.
Breitmeier, H., Underdal, A., Young, O.R., The effectiveness of international environmental regimes: Comparing and contrasting findings from quantitative research. Int Stud Rev 13 (2011), 579–605.
Österblom, H., Sumaila, U.R., Toothfish crises, actor diversity and the emergence of compliance mechanisms in the Southern Ocean. Global Environ Change 21 (2011), 972–982.
Song, A.M., Johnsen, J.P., Morrison, T.H., Reconstructing governability: How fisheries are made governable. Fish Fish 19 (2018), 377–389.
Young, O.R., Webster, D., Cox, M.E., Raakjær, J., Blaxekjær, L.Ø., Einarsson, N., Virginia, R.A., Acheson, J., Bromley, D., Cardwell, E., Moving beyond panaceas in fisheries governance. Proc Natl Acad Sci 115 (2018), 9065–9073.
Goulder, L.H., Parry, I.W., Instrument choice in environmental policy. Rev Environ Econ Policy 2 (2008), 152–174.
Lemos, M.C., Agrawal, A., Environmental governance. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31 (2006), 297–325.
Agrawal, A., Sustainable governance of common-pool resources: Context, methods, and politics. Annu Rev Anthropol 32 (2003), 243–262.
Anderies, J.M., Janssen, M.A., Ostrom, E., A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecol Soc, 9, 2004 This important contribution provides a first step towards operationalising the IAD and SES frameworks and connecting them to ideas about resilience.
Partelow, S., Winkler, K., Interlinking ecosystem services and Ostrom's framework through orientation in sustainability research. Ecol Soc, 21, 2016.
Poteete, A.R., Janssen, M., Ostrom, E., Working Together: Collective Action, the Commons, and Multiple Methods in Practice. 2010, Princeton University Press.
Cox, M., Understanding large social-ecological systems: introducing the SESMAD project. Int J Commons 8 (2014), 265–276.
Hinkel, J., Bots, P.W., Schlüter, M., Enhancing the Ostrom social-ecological system framework through formalization. Ecol Soc, 19, 2014.
Thiel, A., Adamseged, M.E., Baake, C., Evaluating an instrument for institutional crafting: How Ostrom's social–ecological systems framework is applied. Environ Sci Policy 53 (2015), 152–164.
Epstein, G., Vogt, J., Mincey, S., Cox, M., Fischer, B., Missing ecology: integrating ecological perspectives with the social-ecological system framework. Inte J Commons, 7, 2013.
Baggio, J., Barnett, A., Perez-Ibarra, I., Brady, U., Ratajczyk, E., Rollins, N., Rubiños, C., Shin, H., Yu, D., Aggarwal, R., Explaining success and failure in the commons: the configural nature of Ostrom's institutional design principles. Int J Commons, 10, 2016.
Schoon, M., Governance in transboundary conservation: How institutional structure and path dependence matter. Conserv Soc, 11, 2013, 420.
Tekwa, E.W., Fenichel, E.P., Levin, S.A., Pinsky, M.L., Path-dependent institutions drive alternative stable states in conservation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 116 (2019), 689–694.
Morrison, T.H., Evolving polycentric governance of the Great Barrier Reef. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 2017, 201620830.
Ribot, J.C., Agrawal, A., Larson, A.M., Recentralizing while decentralizing: how national governments reappropriate forest resources. World Dev 34 (2006), 1864–1886.
Crona, B.I., Van Holt, T., Petersson, M., Daw, T.M., Buchary, E., Using social–ecological syndromes to understand impacts of international seafood trade on small-scale fisheries. Global Environ Change 35 (2015), 162–175.
Rocha, J.C., Peterson, G., Bodin, Ö., Levin, S., Cascading regime shifts within and across scales. Science 362 (2018), 1379–1383 By exploring interactions between regime shifts, discusses and demonstrates the complexity of interconnections underlying SES dynamics and sets new goalposts for the kind of science that we need.
Clement, S., Guerrero Gonzalez, A., Wyborn, C., Understanding Effectiveness in its Broader Context: Assessing Case Study Methodologies for Evaluating Collaborative Conservation Governance. Soc Nat Resour, 2019, 1–22.
Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C.M., Warren, R., The organization of government in metropolitan areas: a theoretical inquiry. Am Political Sci Rev 55 (1961), 831–842.
Berardo, R., Lubell, M., The ecology of games as a theory of polycentricity: recent advances and future challenges. Policy Stud J 47 (2019), 6–26.
Morrison, T., Adger, W.N., Brown, K., Lemos, M.C., Huitema, D., Phelps, J., Evans, L., Cohen, P., Song, A., Turner, R., The black box of power in polycentric environmental governance. Global Environ Change, 57, 2019, 101934.
Gerstner, K., Moreno-Mateos, D., Gurevitch, J., Beckmann, M., Kambach, S., Jones, H.P., Seppelt, R., Will your paper be used in a meta‐analysis? Make the reach of your research broader and longer lasting. Methods Ecol Evol 8 (2017), 777–784.
Crumley, C.L., Levy, J.E., Ehrenreich, R.M., Heterarchy and the analysis of complex societies. Archeol Papers Am Anthropological Assoc 6 (1995), 1–5.
Cumming, G.S., Heterarchies: reconciling networks and hierarchies. Trends Ecol Evol, 2016 Describes system structure as being located along axes of lateral and hierarchical controls, suggesting quantitative measures for institutions.
Chhatre, A., Agrawal, A., Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106 (2009), 17667–17670.
Gutierrez, N.L., Hilborn, R., Defeo, O: Leadership, social capital and incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature 470 (2011), 386–389.
Bodin, Ö., Robins, G., McAllister, R.R., Guerrero, A.M., Crona, B., Tengö, M., Lubell, M., Theorizing benefits and constraints in collaborative environmental governance: a transdisciplinary social-ecological network approach for empirical investigations. Ecol Soc, 21, 2016.
Lien, A.M., Schlager, E., Lona, A., Using institutional grammar to improve understanding of the form and function of payment for ecosystem services programs. Ecosyst Serv 31 (2018), 21–31.
Morrison, T.H., Adger, W.N., Brown, K., Lemos, M.C., Huitema, D., Hughes, T.P., Mitigation and adaptation in polycentric systems: Sources of power in the pursuit of collective goals. Wiley Interdiscip Rev: Clim Change, 8, 2017, e479.
Cox, M., Villamayor-Tomas, S., Epstein, G., Evans, L., Ban, N.C., Fleischman, F., Nenadovic, M., Garcia-Lopez, G., Synthesizing theories of natural resource management and governance. Global Environ Change 39 (2016), 45–56.
Poteete, A., Janssen, M., Ostrom, E., Multiple methods in practice: Collective action and the commons. 2009, Princeton University Press.
Cumming, G., Cumming, D.H., Redman, C., Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecol Soc, 11, 2006.
Epstein, G., Pittman, J., Alexander, S.M., Berdej, S., Dyck, T., Kreitmair, U., Raithwell, K.J., Villamayor-Tomas, S., Vogt, J., Armitage, D., Institutional fit and the sustainability of social–ecological systems. Curr Opin Environ Sustainability 14 (2015), 34–40.
Young, O.R., The institutional dimensions of environmental change: fit, interplay, and scale. 2002, MIT press.
McCord, P., Dell'Angelo, J., Baldwin, E., Evans, T., Polycentric transformation in Kenyan water governance: A dynamic analysis of institutional and social‐ecological change. Policy Stud J 45 (2017), 633–658.
Aoki, M., Endogenizing institutions and institutional changes. J Inst Econ 3 (2007), 1–31 Presents an alternative perspective to the SES framework, focusing on endogenous creation of institutions.
De Moor, M., Berasaín, L., Miguel, J., Laborda Peman, M., van Weeren, R., Winchester, A., Ruling the Commons. Introducing a new methodology for the analysis of historical commons. Int J Commons 10 (2016), 529–588.
Lubell, M., Collaborative partnerships in complex institutional systems. Curr Opin Environ Sustainability 12 (2015), 41–47.
McGinnis, M.D., An Introduction to IAD and the Language of the Ostrom Workshop: A Simple Guide to a Complex Framework. Policy Stud J 39 (2011), 169–183.
Orach, K., Schlüter, M., Österblom, H., Tracing a pathway to success: How competing interest groups influenced the 2013 EU Common Fisheries Policy reform. Environ Sci Policy 76 (2017), 90–102.
Rissman, A.R., Gillon, S., Where are ecology and biodiversity in social–ecological systems research? A review of research methods and applied recommendations. Conserv Lett 10 (2017), 86–93.
Long, N.E., The local community as an ecology of games. Am J Soc 64 (1958), 251–261.
Smaldino, P.E., Lubell, M., Institutions and cooperation in an ecology of games. Artif life 20 (2014), 207–221.
McGinnis, M.D., Networks of adjacent action situations in polycentric governance. Policy Stud J 39 (2011), 51–78.
Villamayor-Tomas, S., Grundmann, P., Epstein, G., Evans, T., Kimmich, C., The water-energy-food security nexus through the lenses of the value chain and the institutional analysis and development frameworks. Water Altern 8 (2015), 735–755.
Sayles, J., Garcia, M.M., Hamilton, M., Alexander, S., Baggio, J., Fischer, A.P., Ingold, K., Meredith, G., Pittman, J., Social-ecological network analysis for sustainability sciences: a systematic review and innovative research agenda for the future. Environ Res Lett, 2019.
Bodin, Ö., Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science, 357, 2017, eaan1114.
Bodin, Ö., Alexander, S.M., Baggio, J., Barnes, M.L., Berardo, R., Cumming, G.S., Dee, L.E., Fischer, A.P., Fischer, M., Mancilla Garcia, M., et al. Improving network approaches to the study of complex social–ecological interdependencies. Nat Sustainability, 2019 Integrates network analysis with the SES framework, laying out a useful conceptual overview.
Madin, J.S., Bowers, S., Schildhauer, M.P., Jones, M.B., Advancing ecological research with ontologies. Trends Ecol Evol 23 (2008), 159–168.
Granovetter, M.J., The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 148 (1973), 1360–1380.
Bodin, Ö., Tengö, M., Disentangling intangible social–ecological systems. Global Environ Change 22 (2012), 430–439.
Baggio, J.A., BurnSilver, S.B., Arenas, A., Magdanz, J.S., Kofinas, G.P., De Domenico, M., Multiplex social ecological network analysis reveals how social changes affect community robustness more than resource depletion. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113 (2016), 13708–13713.
Agrawal, A., Brown, D.G., Rao, G., Riolo, R., Robinson, D.T., Bommarito, I.I.M., Interactions between organizations and networks in common-pool resource governance. Environ Sci Policy 25 (2013), 138–146.
Cumming, G.S., Spatial Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. 2011, Springer.
Bourgeron, P., Kliskey, A., Alessa, L., Loescher, H., Krauze, K., Virapongse, A., Griffith, D.L., Understanding large‐scale, complex, human–environmental processes: a framework for social–ecological observatories. Front Ecol Environ 16 (2018), S52–S66.
Caniglia, G., Schäpke, N., Lang, D.J., Abson, D.J., Luederitz, C., Wiek, A., Laubichler, M.D., Gralla, F., von Wehrden, H., Experiments and evidence in sustainability science: A typology. J Clean Prod 169 (2017), 39–47.
Fischer, J., Gardner, T.A., Bennett, E.M., Balvanera, P., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S., Daw, T., Folke, C., Hill, R., Hughes, T.P., et al. Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social–ecological systems perspective. Curr Opin Environ Sustainability 14 (2015), 144–149.
Graham, S.A., The Need of Standardized Quantitative Methods in Forest Biology. Ecology 10 (1929), 245–250.
Cumming, G.S., Collier, J., Change and identity in complex systems. Ecol Soc, 10, 2005, 29 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss21/art29/.
Cumming, G.S., Barnes, G., Perz, S., Schmink, M., Sieving, K.E., Southworth, J., Binford, M., Holt, R.D., Stickler, C., Van Holt, T., An exploratory framework for the empirical measurement of resilience. Ecosystems 8 (2005), 975–987.
Schluter, M., Muller, B., Frank, K., The potential of models and modeling for social-ecological systems research: the reference frame ModSES. Ecol Soc, 24, 2019 Useful integrated analysis of the role and relevance of models for SES research.
Baggio, J.A., Hillis, V., Managing ecological disturbances: Learning and the structure of social-ecological networks. Environ Model Software 109 (2018), 32–40.
Janssen, M.A., Baggio, J.A., Using agent-based models to compare behavioral theories on experimental data: Application for irrigation games. J Environ Psychol 46 (2016), 106–115.
Magliocca, N.R., Walls, M., The role of subjective risk perceptions in shaping coastal development dynamics. Comput Environ Urban Systems, 2018.
Henrickson, L., McKelvey, B., new. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99 (2002), 7288–7295.
Merton, R.K., On sociological theories of the middle range [1949]. na, 1949.
Meyfroidt, P., Chowdhury, R.R., de Bremond, A., Ellis, E., Erb, K.-H., Filatova, T., Garrett, R., Grove, J.M., Heinimann, A., Kuemmerle, T., Middle-range theories of land system change. Global Environ Change 53 (2018), 52–67 Presents important ideas about mid-range theories and bounded applicability, providing a role model for institutional analysis.
Oberlack, C., Tejada, L., Messerli, P., Rist, S., Giger, M., Sustainable livelihoods in the global land rush? Archetypes of livelihood vulnerability and sustainability potentials. Global Environ Change 41 (2016), 153–171.
Gurney, G.G., Darling, E.S., Jupiter, S.D., Mangubhai, S., McClanahan, T.R., Lestari, P., Pardede, S., Campbell, S.J., Fox, M., Naisilisili, W., Implementing a social-ecological systems framework for conservation monitoring: lessons from a multi-country coral reef program. Biol Conserv, 240, 2019, 108298 Provides an example of how the SES framework can be used to develop monitoring schemes.
Poteete, A.R., Ostrom, E., Fifteen years of empirical research on collective action in natural resource management: struggling to build large-N databases based on qualitative research. World Dev 36 (2008), 176–195.
Young, O.R., Zürn, M., The international regimes database: Designing and using a sophisticated tool for institutional analysis. Global Environ Politics 6 (2006), 121–143.
Frey, U.J., Cox, M., Building a diagnostic ontology of social-ecological systems. Int J Commons 9 (2015), 595–618.