|Variable Component Type||Governance System|
|Theme||Institutional-biophysical linkage (learn about themes)|
|Question||What type(s) of knowledge does this governance system employ in its management of the commons it governs?|
|Select Options||Scientific knowledge, Local/traditional knowledge, Other|
|Importance||There has been quite a bit of discussion about the merits of using one or another type of knowledge as the basis for interacting with a commons. Most of this discussion has focused on the management of natural resources, and has emphasized the importance of local, traditional knowledge as a way to respond to the complex dynamics of local ecosystems (see Folke 2004 and associated articles). Some of this same literature has been critical of the exclusive emphasis on scientific knowledge as a way of managing natural resources, which has been most prominently exhibited in the discipline of scientific fisheries management. At the same time, scientific knowledge has been shown to be critically important in many pollution-based cases (e.g. in the governance of the Montreal Protocol, in which scientific knowledge was used to establish the importance for governance action in the first place), and for certain types of natural resources, such as groundwater aquifers, that are not easily examined and understood without science and technology. Cody et al. (2015), for example, described the importance of scientific information of the groundwater aquifers in the San Luis Valley of Colorado in enabling collective action and effective governance of these resources.|
There are two main types of knowledge that have been discussed in the literature: (1) scientific knowledge and (2) local or traditional knowledge.
Scientific knowledge refers to systematized knowledge based on systematic inquiry. Generally, scientific knowledge refers to knowledge available in peer-reviewed publications or other highly reputable sources (e.g. such as some government reports), produced by scientists with formal training.
Local and traditional knowledge capture a diversity of forms of knowledge which are not based on scientific processes. Traditional knowledge refers to knowledge passed down through generations, generally among people living in a region for a long time - including, but not limited to indigenous people. Local knowledge refers to knowledge that people who live or work in an area have of the area or resource which may not be based on generations of residing in the area, but may be based on long observations by individuals. Although these people may have engaged in some kind of systematic inquiry to obtain this knowledge, it would generally not be published in formal sources, and the people conducting the inquiry would not have received systematic training in means of making systematic inquiry.
|Polycentric comanagement||Scientific knowledge and Local/traditional knowledge|
|Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM)||Local/traditional knowledge|
|Failure of centralized control||Scientific|
|Individual transferable quotas (ITQs)||Scientific|
|Parametric management||Local/traditional knowledge|
|Technical solutions and shifting the burden||Scientific|
|Political decentralization and fit||Local/Traditional Knowledge|
|Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan||["Scientific knowledge"]|
|The Falkland Islands Government (FIG) Fisheries Department’s Falklands Interim Conservation and Management Zone (FICZ)||["", "Scientific knowledge"]||Scientific Mostly. The governance system heavily relies on the best available scientific information. However, much of the data is fishery dependent, thus relying on local knowledge, mostly from the Spanish masters and their 30 years experience. Not a long history of traditional knowledge to access, some whalers and Russian sheep herders.|
|Macquarie Island Nature Reserve Management Plan||["Scientific knowledge"]|
|Macquarie Island Toothfish Fishery Management Plan||["Scientific knowledge"]||Scientific knowledge is used exclusively to govern appropriation of toothfish and develop regulations.|
|Raja Ampat Governance System||["Scientific knowledge", "Local/traditional knowledge"]||Heavy involvement of Conservation NGOs who provide much of the science to feed into the management. However, MPAs were originally built upon local-taboo/sasi management and this is still incorporated.|
|Joint Sanctuary Management Governance System||["Scientific knowledge"]||The scientific grounding of the FMPs come from peer-reviewed literature and government-led research projects. The Sanctuaries are mandated to use the best available science.|
|Wakatobi National Park 2008-current||["Scientific knowledge"]||Focus on scientific knowledge reflects the involvement of conservation NGOs - TNC/WWF - who were heavily involved in the original RAP assessments, zoning and rules of the MPA - although it is unclear if any current monitoring data is feeding into management.|
|GMR governance system 1998-current||["Scientific knowledge"]||Scientific organisations feed into the management of the GMR. Although to what extent this information is then appropriately acted upon is debateable. Most of the residents on the Galapagos are immigrants from mainland Ecuador and so there is not the same body of local/traditional knowledge as would be considered in other parts of the world.|
|Seaflower MPA Act 2005||["Scientific knowledge", "Local/traditional knowledge"]||Mapping of key areas/habitats was completed through participatory exercises with all stakeholders including artisanal fishers.|
|GBR Marine Park Act 1975-1999||["Scientific knowledge"]|
|Svalbard Environmental Protection Act||["", "Scientific knowledge"]||The Nature Reserves relies on scientific knowledge, and has a formal monitoring system (MOSJ). Note: Svalbard does not have an indigenous population. A variety of indicators are monitored: http://www.mosj.no/en/indicators/|
|GBR Marine Park Act 2004-current||["Scientific knowledge"]||GBRMPA employs scientists, and collaborates with AIMS and universities, to generate and use scientific information|
|Macquarie Island Marine Park Management Plan||["Scientific knowledge"]||Scientific knowledge is used almost, if not, totally exclusively. There is no resident population on the island other than researchers and workers for the Australian Antarctic Division.|
|GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Plan of Management 2000 - 2005 and Management Plan 2005 - 2012||["Scientific knowledge", "Local/traditional knowledge"]||Scientific knowledge - Scientific knowledge on southern right whale and Australian sea lion habitat was used in the development of the MMPZ of the GABMP (CW). There was less known about the benthic flora and fauna of the GAB region at the time of Park designation but since then, at least 3 benthic surveys have been completed to learn more about the communities found inside and outside of the BPZ and to determine if this zone is representative sample of the GAB region. Scientific knowledge and local/traditional knowledge - A Steering Committee of Australian and South Australian government agencies guides the day-to-day management of the GABMP (CW). At the time of preparation of the 2005 - 2012 Management Plan, the committee consisted of representatives from both State and Commonwealth agencies (Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage, South Australian Department for Environment and Heritage, Primary Industries and Resources South Australia), municipal government (District Council of Ceduna), and fishery and tourism commissions (South Australian Tourism Commission, Australian Fisheries Management Authority). There is also a non-government Consultative Committee that advises the Australian and South Australian governments about management of the Great Australian Bight Marine Park. The Consultative Committee represents general community interests, Indigenous interests, commercial interests and scientific interests in the Park and the State Park and includes representatives of the petroleum and fishery industries, Indigenous peoples, scientists (SARDI, CSIRO and environmental non-government organizations (The Wilderness Society).|
|NWHI Monument Act 2006||["Scientific knowledge", "Local/traditional knowledge"]||The Monument uses both types of knowledge to manage the MPA. Both scientific knowledge and traditional knowledge are part of the mandate to protect the area and are included in the action plans for monitoring the resources.|
|Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve Management Plan||["Scientific knowledge"]||With no human habitants on HIMI, the GS exclusively uses scientific knowledge.|
|Heard Island and McDonald Islands Fishery Management Plan||["Scientific knowledge"]||Management is very science-based with input from the AFMA, AAD, SARAG, CCAMLR and others; all of these groups include fisheries scientists. Biological and ecological information is actively gathered by AFMA fisheries observers (required on all Heard and McDonald Island fishing vessels). AAD, in collaboration with the AFMA, also carries out annual fisheries-independent surveys (random stratified trawl survey).|
|Galapagos Governance System 1998-current||["Scientific knowledge"]||Mainly focussed on scientific knowledge produced by CDF|
|Cenderwasih governance system||Not Applicable|
|New Zealand Quota Management System||[""]||Scientific Knowledge: Not much local tradition to access. Employes scientific.|
|Self.organized rules and norms for SCUBA diving||["", "Scientific knowledge", "Local/traditional knowledge"]|
|Indonesian Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture||["", "Scientific knowledge", "Other"]|
|Marine Areas for Responsible Fishing (AMPRs) Costa Rica||["", "Scientific knowledge", "Local/traditional knowledge"]|
|Sasi in Tomolol, Misool||[""]|
|Caeté-Taperaçú Extractive Reserve (RESEX) in Brazil||["", "Scientific knowledge", "Local/traditional knowledge"]|
|California Department of Fish and Wildlife Market Squid Fishery Management Plan||["", "Scientific knowledge"]||Scientific knowledge: While some regulations are a reflection of local factors (e.g. weekend closures are a social construction), management is scientifically focused. Little local knowledge.|
Basic:A basic variable describes essential and basic background information for a component.
Biophysical:Biophysical variables describe just that: important biophysical properties, largely of environmental commons, that are not captured by a more specific theme.
Causation:A variable with this theme describes issues of causality, which is a complex subject. Most basically this theme is associated with variables that describe different types of causation and different types of causes of environmental problems.
Context:contextual variable relates the component with which it associated to the social and/or ecological setting of a particular interaction and/or case.
Ecosystem services:Variables associated with this theme describe factors that affect or describe the provision of important ecosystem services by a natural resource.
Enforcement:Enforcement involves several different processes, including monitoring for violations of rules, sanctioning violators, and conflict resolution mechanisms involved in this process. Variables that relate to any of these processes should be attached to this theme.
External:Variables with this theme relate a component to processes external to the case with which the component is associated.
Heterogeneity:Variables with this theme describe important ways in which the member of an actor group differ from each other.
Incentives: This theme is associated with variables that are not directly related to institutions and rules, but which still play a role in affecting the incentives that commons users have to ameliorate or exacerbate the commons they use.
Institutional-biophysical linkage:This is a sub-theme of the institutions theme, and describes those variables that ask about the relationship between a set of institutions and a biophysical aspect of a commons.
Institutions:Variables with this theme describe the social institutions (rules, property rights) that are used to organize and direct human behavior. It does not include monitoring and enforcement of these institutions, as these are associated with the Enforcement theme.
Knowledge and uncertainty:Variables with this theme describe levels of knowledge that actor groups have regarding a commons, as well as factors that affect how much uncertainty there is in the status and dynamics of that commons.
Leadership:Leaders play an important role in commons management, most traditionally by providing for public goods needed to organize commons users. But there are other possible roles, and variables associated with this theme can relate to any role that a leader might play in an interaction.
Outcomes:This theme is attached to variables that deal with any outcomes that are produced by the actions of relevant actors in an interaction.
Resource renewability:Variables associated with this theme deal with the ability of a natural resource to be highly productive and renewable.
Social capital:Social capital captures the processes that enable the members of an actor group to work effectively together. Variables associated with this theme describe factors that affect or in some way express the level of social capital among members of a group.
Spatial:Variables associated with the Spatial theme describe important spatial patterns or dynamics, such as the spatial heterogeneity of a commons, or whether or not a user group resides within a particular commons.
Technology:This theme is attached to variables that consider the role that technology and infrastructure have in affecting commons outcomes.