|Variable Component Type||Actor|
|Theme||Incentives (learn about themes)|
|Question||Are the costs of leaving the group very high for group members?|
|Importance||The more difficult it is to leave a group the more stable the group is likely to be. Consistency of group members in turn has implications for social capital and potential for effective collective action. If it is very easy to leave a group then group members have fewer incentives to act collectively. High costs of exit are generally thought to encourage collective-action.|
Belonging to a particular group - whether a community, resource user group, industry or other collective of actors - has associated costs and benefits. Leaving a group also has associated costs and benefits. Costs can be monetary or non-monetary.
|Indonesian "Adat" Communities||Missing in case|
|"Reformasi" Indonesian Central Government (1998-2012)||No||This is an error, and should be recoded as "missing in case". It may be that the cost of leaving government employment is not very high, but we really don't have any clear evidence on this point.|
|"New Order" Indonesian Central Government (1965-1998)||Yes||Individuals who left the government lost access to privilege and patronage, and sometimes their freedom, or even their lives. While great wealth could be amassed by Suharto's allies, those outside of this system had limited opportunities and were subjected to political persecution.|
|Large Extractive Industries in Indonesia||Yes||Extractive industries are highly profitable in Indonesia, thus leaving this group involves forgoing large potential profits. On the other hand, those profiting from extractive industries may be able to move their capital into other activities that are also profitable, lowering the costs of leaving the group.|
|Indonesian Local entrepreneurs||?|
|Ozone Depleting Substance Industrial Producers||Yes||No producer has broken with the Protocol agreement.|
|Ozone Secretariat||No||The ozone layer is a commons, and so member or non-member states receive the benefit of the treaty regardless of membership.|
|ICCAT Eastern Members||Yes||Although countries may still fish for Eastern ABFT if they leave ICCAT, they would lose legal access to international trade, and the lucrative Japanese sashimi market.|
|ICPR nations (1976-1986)||Yes||There was high public awareness of the pollution problem in the Rhine|
|Galapagos Artisan Fishermen||No||Coded as no, because although there are costs associated with leaving the fishery (including debt repayments) these are not 'very high' as many fisherman have now left the fishery during the time period being coded and have moved into the tourism sector.|
|Civil society organizations in Indonesia||Missing in case|
|ICCAT Contracting Parties||Yes||If members choose to leave ICCAT they lose the ability to trade bluefin tuna with other contracting parties, most notably Japan.|
|Ozone Nation States||Not applicable|
|GBR fisheries managers||Not Applicable|
|GBR commercial fishers||Yes||Exiting the fishery can be expensive due to the level of infrastructural investment involved. Boats, licenses etc., can be sold but this is sometimes difficult to do.|
|ICCAT Western Members||Yes||Although countries may still fish for Eastern ABFT if they leave ICCAT, they would lose legal access to international trade, and the lucrative Japanese sashimi market.|
|ICPR nations (1986-2000)||Yes||See "ICPR Nations (1987-1986)"|
|Rhine chemical firms||Yes||Pharmaceutical or steel industries require very high capital investments|
|Rhine agricultural sector||Yes||Many farmers and farming corporations make important capital investments that need to be recovered.|
|GBR government co-managers||Not Applicable|
|Svalbard Resource Managers||Not Applicable.|
|Wakatobi managers||Not Applicable|
|Indonesian District Governments||It is not clear how to apply the question to this kind of case. I'm not sure what it means for the members of this group to leave? Is it possible for a district government to leave? maybe this needs to be not applicable?|
|Raja Ampat Tourism||Not Applicable|
|Raja Ampat Managers||Not Applicable|
|NWHI Monument Co-Trusteeship||Not Applicable|
|Riparian Nations (1976-1986)|
|Wakatobi Bajau fishers||Yes||No membership fees to be part of this group, but because of high dependence on the resource costs invested in gears/boats are high relative to income. Few alternative livelihoods - high cost to leave.|
|Australian Antarctic Division||Not Applicable|
|GMR managers||Not Applicable|
|NWHI Researchers||Not Applicable|
|CORALINA||No||Group members are government employees so it should not be difficult to leave this group by moving to another job or to another location.|
|Raja Ampat Artisanal Fishers||Yes||Dependence on the fishery is variable and many households also farm, but fishing is still an important livelihood|
|Macquarie Island Managers||Not Applicable|
|Charles Darwin Foundation||No||No cost associated|
|Galapagos Tourism Sector||Not Applicable|
|National Marine Sanctuaries Office of NOAA||No||Teams are staffed by the federal government and so no cost to leave from the individual standpoint.|
|Seaflower artisanal fishers||Missing||NO DATA|
|GBR recreational fishers||No||Costs of existing recreational fishing would be relatively minimal. It is a recreational activity and costs of exit would depend on investment in boats and kit. However, there is a market for re-sale.|
|California Academic Researchers||No||Researchers can leave the field or move on to other projects not in SIMoN without any cost. The cost of discontinuing any long-term monitoring study is difficult to assess.|
|California State and Federal Fisheries Agencies||No||Teams are staffed by the federal government and so there is no cost for an individual to leave an agency.|
|California Sanctuary Recreational Users||Yes||Investments such as in whale watching boats, recreational boats, kayaks, storage facilities, and wharf space may be high cost to leave behind for the companies.|
|California Groundfish Fishermen||Yes||Most of the time it is very costly to leave, since it is high cost to invest in gear and takes time and relationships to develop the market.|
|Australian Fisheries Management Authority||Not Applicable|
|Svalbard Tourism||Yes||For each organization, the boats used for cruises in northern environments cost millions of dollars. This infrastructure investment may present considerable cost to leaving the industry. In addition, in the tourism industry where reputation matters, it may be difficult to ‘jump-ship’, because it would take a while to establish a new operation in a new location.|
|Svalbard Shrimp Fishers||No||With large infrastructure costs for fishing vessels, one might assume that the costs for leaving the industry may be high. However, from the mid-1990s to 2010, there was a trend from many, smaller vessels to fewer, larger vessels (NAFO 2006 ). This likely means that the number of fishers has decreased, and thus costs must not have been too high to leave the industry.|
|Galapagos Charles Darwin Foundation||Not Applicable|
|GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Director of National Parks||No||Group members are government employees so it should not be difficult to leave this group. Peter Cochrane, who served as Director of National Parks from 1999 - 2013, was replaced by Sally Barnes and also in 2013, Assistant Secretary Mark Taylor of the Parks and Protected Areas Programs Branch was transferred to another department and replaced by Dr. Barbara Musso.|
|GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Commercial Fishers||Yes||The costs of leaving this group can be high due to the level of infrastructural investment involved - statutory fishing rights, fishing permits, licensing fees, boats, fishing equipment.|
|Cenderwasih fishers||Yes||In general marine resources are important to local livelihoods (although the level of depedence is variable by village)|
|Cenderwasih managers||Not Applicable|
|Australian Toothfish Fishers||Yes||Costs of exit is high since these two Australian fishing companies hold the entire quota at the Macquarie and the Heard and McDonald Islands. Further, these companies have worked (and invested) in becoming certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council, which adds further value to the fishery. Also, while Toothfish fisheries exist in other areas throughout the circumpolar region, most of them are in other States' EEZ and would not be open to Australian fishing vessels. Some stocks on the high seas (e.g, in the Ross Sea) would be available to Australian fishing vessels, however, these fisheries occur in a highly competitive Olympic Style fashion and Australian vessels would not be guaranteed any portion of the quota.|
|New Zealand Fishery Managers||No||No. High turnover rate.|
|Patagonian Squid Trawlers||No||Trawlers set up for long distance fishing, so could go elsewhere. But they typically do not.|
|Falkland Islands Government (FIG) Fisheries Managers||No||Most managers are recruited from abroad and are given suitable moving expense and housing packages.|
|Association of Users in the Caete-Teperacu RESEX (ASSUREMACATA) in Brazil||Missing|
|Lombok aquaculture farmers||Yes|
|California market squid fishermen||No||Getting in is costly, but can leave without cost. Likely more make money leaving by selling permit and vessel.|
|Indonesian Institute of Sciences - LIPI||Not Applicable|
|Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio)|
|California Department of Fish and Wildlife Market Squid Managers||No||No costs to leaving|
|Gili EcoTrust on Gili Trawangan||Not Applicable|
|Brazilian Institute of the Environment & Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA)||Not Applicable|
|Isla Caballo AMPR Costa Rica||Missing|
|Paquera-Tambor AMPR Costa Rica||Missing|
|SCUBA diving businesses on Gili Trawangan||No|
|Gili Indah Dive Association (GIDA)||Yes||Costs are related to social norms and trust, rather than economics.|
|Palito-Montero AMPR Costa Rica||Yes|
|Secretary of State for the Environment of Pará (SEMA) in Brazil||Not Applicable|
|New Zealand Arrow Squid Fishers||No||Biggest cost is being able to sell quota since there are constraints on it, but no generally no costs to leave|
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.