|Variable Component Type||Environmental Common|
|Theme||Outcomes (learn about themes)|
|Question||What were the conditions of this environmental commons at the beginning of the time period being examined?|
|Select Options||1 0-10% of peak stock or 91-100% of maximum pollution level, 2 11-20% of peak stock or 81-90% of maximum pollution level, 3 21-30% of peak stock or 71-80% of maximum pollution level, 4 31-40% of peak stock or 61-70% of maximum pollution level, 5 41-50% of peak stock or 51-60% of maximum pollution level, 6 51-60% of peak stock or 41-50% of maximum pollution level, 7 61-70% of peak stock or 31-40% of maximum pollution level, 8 71-80% of peak stock or 21-30% of maximum pollution level, 9 81-90% of peak stock or 11-20% of maximum pollution level, 10 91-100% of peak stock or 0-10% of maximum pollution level|
|Importance||This variable enables the coder to record the condition of the commons at the beginning of the snapshot. This is important because in order to measure the potential impact of a governance system on a commons, it is necessary to know how the commons was doing prior to the onset of the current governance system - commons relationship. This variable can be used, in combination with ECEndCondition, to measure the change in the commons condition during a governance-commons snapshot. The goal of this variable is to measure the condition of the commons at the beginning of the snapshot relative to the best or worst possible condition of the resource. This enables comparability of systems which are measured in different terms. For example, we measure the population of Atlantic Bluefin tuna relative to historic populations, the remaining area of Indonesian forests relative to the pre-20th century area of forests in Indonesia, and levels of ozone depleting substances relative to their highest level.|
This variable records the condition of the commons at the beginning of the snapshot. The condition is measured in terms of a percentage of the peak stock or condition, or of the maximum pollution level.
|Case||Interaction Type||Component||Value Used||Explanation|
|Forests in Indonesia||Governance||Forests in Indonesia||81-90% of peak stock or 11-20% of maximum pollution level (9)||Global Forest Watch (2002) indicates that in 1950, 162.29 MHa of Indonesia's total land area of 192 MHa - or about 85% was forested. We can't find data from 1965, but sources indicate that there was not very much deforestation prior to 1965. By 1985, the next available date, forest cover had declined to about 119.7 MHa.|
|Forests in Indonesia||Governance||Forests in Indonesia||51-60% of peak stock or 41-50% of maximum pollution level (6)||Estimates of forest cover showed that at the beginning of this time period, just over 50% of the country was forested, down from about 85% in 1950, and an estimate of close to 100% in the not very distant past.|
|Galapagos Marine Reserve||Biophysical||Galapagos Sea Cucumber|
|Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ICCAT)||Governance||Western Atlantic Bluefin Tuna||11-20% of peak stock or 81-90% of maximum pollution level (2)|
|Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ICCAT)||Governance||Eastern Atlantic Bluefin Tuna||71-80% of peak stock or 21-30% of maximum pollution level (8)|
|Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ICCAT)||Governance||Eastern Atlantic Bluefin Tuna||61-70% of peak stock or 31-40% of maximum pollution level (7)|
|Montreal Protocol||Biophysical||Ozone||31-40% of peak stock or 61-70% of maximum pollution level (4)||Ozone hole is approximately 18.7 million km2, 70.3% of its peak size.|
|Montreal Protocol||Biophysical||Ozone Depleting Substances||0-10% of peak stock or 91-100% of maximum pollution level (1)||Production of Ozone depleting substances peaked around 1989, although reliable records prior to 1989 are not available given the absence of a consistent monitoring regime.|
|Montreal Protocol||Governance||Ozone Depleting Substances||0-10% of peak stock or 91-100% of maximum pollution level (1)||Emissions were at their highest level at the start of the Montreal Protocol.|
|International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR)||Governance||Rhine Point source pollutants||11-20% of peak stock or 81-90% of maximum pollution level (2)||Pollution by the 1960s (when the ICPR was created) was the highers of the history in the Rhine. From then point source pollution started to decrease.|
|Great Barrier Reef Marine Park||Governance||GBR coral cover||11-20% of peak stock or 81-90% of maximum pollution level (2)||Note: double-check this. Should be based on extent of coral cover.|
|Great Barrier Reef Marine Park||Governance||GBR target fish|
|Great Barrier Reef Marine Park||Governance||GBR target fish||61-70% of peak stock or 31-40% of maximum pollution level (7)||Baselines are not clear|
|Montreal Protocol||Governance||Ozone Depleting Substances||Missing in Case, but generally known to be high and increasing|
|Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR)||Governance||Galapagos Sea Cucumber||51-60% of peak stock or 41-50% of maximum pollution level (6)||No baseline survey data for 'peak stock', but the sea cucumber boom started in 1993, prior to the coding of this case, although fishing was still high so estimated at 51-60%. In 1993, stocks estimated at 6.2 individuals/meters squared in some regions. In 2001, density at 1.03ind/m2. These density values are highly variable. (Hearn et al 2005)|
|Macquarie Island Marine Park||Governance||Patagonian Toothfish||81-90% of peak stock or 11-20% of maximum pollution level (9)||Estimates suggest the spawning stock biomass was between 80% and 85% of unfished levels in 2001.|
|Macquarie Island Marine Park||Governance||Light Mantled Albatross||91-100% of peak stock or 0-10% of maximum pollution level (10)||Estimates suggest there were approximately 1200 breeding pairs on Macquarie Island. It is important to note that this is not necessarily peak stock, but historical estimates are not available, but likely exceeded this figure.|
|Wakatobi National Park||Governance||Wakatobi Green Turtle||Missing||No baseline data to determine exactly the status of turtles prior to re-zoning of the MPA.|
|Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Marine National Monument||Governance||NWHI Lobster Fishery||0-10% of peak stock or 91-100% of maximum pollution level (1)||No clear population estimate. But CPUE declined 87% between 1983- 1999. CPUE for spiny lobster in 999 was 0.31 (mature lobster landings/trap hauls; data from DiNardo and Marshall 2001). The fishery has been closed for the duration of this snap-shot|
|International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR)||Biophysical||Rhine Non-point source pollutants|
|Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR)||Governance||Galapagos Sharks||Missing||Condition of sharks at beginning of the governance system is unknown. Baseline study on biodiversity in 2002 has little on sharks, some distribution and relative abundance of the more common sharks (Hearn et al., 2013)|
|Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Marine National Monument||Governance||NWHI Trophic Density||No data for 'peak stock', but trophic density has always been high in this MPA and at the beginning of this time period. Considered a near pristine ecosystem.|
|Central California National Marine Sanctuaries||Governance||California Rocky Shores Ecosystem Health||61-70% of peak stock or 31-40% of maximum pollution level (7)||The 1971 oil spill in San Francisco decreased habitat health, but the ecosystem rebounded. However, in 1984 the T/V Puerto Rican spill led to long-term leakage of oil, decreasing habitat health (GFNMS MP 1987). Key species e.g. Pilaster Ochraceus were in decline during this time.|
|Central California National Marine Sanctuaries||Governance||California Groundfish Habitat||51-60% of peak stock or 41-50% of maximum pollution level (6)||Groundfish landings peaked at 54.4 million pounds in 1982 (TNC, 2008), which was the year the FMP was established. At the beginning of this snapshot, 1987, a Limited Entry regulation was being discussed, and thus fishing effort is thought to have increased (Radtke and Davis, 2000). In 1987, landings were about 67% of the 1982 peak landings level. In terms of relative spawning biomass (fishery independent data), many species were about 20-40% below in 1987 than highest point in the series (Miller et al. 2009). Trawling was more extensive at the beginning of this snapshot, and has known effects to groundfish habitat (Lindholm 2014). Historical trawling distribution is largely unknown.|
|Svalbard Nature Reserves||Governance||Svalbard Polar Bear||Unknown. As above, there are no reliable estimates of population size over time. Aars et al (2009) estimated the Barents Sea population (of which the Nature Reserve population is included) in 2004 (the beginning of the time period) at 2650 bears (95% CIs: 1900-3600). Fauchald et la (2014) suggest that the population is well below the historical stock size and the current capacity, but does not provide specific numerical estimates.|
|Great Barrier Reef Marine Park||Governance||GBR Green Turtle||Missing||It is difficult to obtain accurate population estimates for the Green Turtle population size, but it is believed to be below the historical maximum of the population (GBRMPA 2014).|
|Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve||Governance||Light Mantled Albatross||91-100% of peak stock or 0-10% of maximum pollution level (10)||Early estimates (1950s) suggest 200-500 light mantled albatross nesting on Heard Island and counts since then (in 2001 and 2004) suggest these population estimates are reasonable and that maybe the population is even increasing (due to the discovery of novel nesting sites not seen in the 1950s). However, nests are very difficult to access, so its impossible to actually confirm what the original population size was or how it has changed (see Woehler 2006).|
|Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve||Governance||King Penguin||Missing||Original population size not known relative to the beginning conditions (80,000 Penguins).|
|Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve||Governance||Patagonian Toothfish||81-90% of peak stock or 11-20% of maximum pollution level (9)||In 2002, spawning stock biomass was estimated to be at 82% (~71,000 tonnes, virgin biomass of ~82,400 tonnes; CCAMLR 2013).|
|Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters)||Governance||GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Sea Lion||11-20% of peak stock or 81-90% of maximum pollution level (2)||18 - The mean maximum total number of Australian sea lions counted (all age/sex classes) per breeding sites in 2001 conducted along the Bunda Cliffs (GABMP) Mackay et al. 2013. Australian sea lion abundance in the Bunda Cliffs region, GAB Marine Park. Technical Report|
|Svalbard Nature Reserves||Governance||Svalbard Kittiwake|
|Seaflower MPA||Governance||Seaflower groupers||Missing||NO DATA|
|Cenderwasih National Park||Governance||Cenderwasih coral cover||31-40% of peak stock or 61-70% of maximum pollution level (4)||live hard coral cover 38.3 ± 14.4 in 2010 (Mangubhai et al. 2012).|
|Falkland Islands squid||Governance||Patagonian squid (Loligo gahi)||81-90% of peak stock or 11-20% of maximum pollution level (9)||The Falkland Islands were not monitored until after governance began. Measurements are from the 1990s, so many cannot say what the conditions were. But since the fishery only had just begun, likelihood of it being just under peak stock is high. 1983-1985 the annual catch was around 40,000 mt (Csirke 1987). Total annual catch of Falkland Islands is around 50,000t (Arkhipkin et al. 2013a).|
|New Zealand squid||Governance||Arrow Squid (Nototodarus spp.)||91-100% of peak stock or 0-10% of maximum pollution level (10)||No stock assessment. New Zealand arrow squid fishery developed heavily in the early 1970s. Total catches by foreign and New Zealand vessels have increased from insignificant by-catches in the late 1960s to about 80,000t in 1979. Initially, an estimated biomass of 600,000t for the entire New Zealand region was calculated by the areal expansion method based on 1978-79 commercial catch data from both the jig and trawl fisheries (Mattlin and Colman 1988). Total landings of squid have varied over the years. They were about 70,000 tonnes in the 1980s and reached a peak of 214,072 tonnes in the 1983-1984 season and then decreased rapidly to about 37,278 tonnes in the 1992-93 season (New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries, 2001a).|
|Caete-Teperacu Extractive Reserve (RESEX) in Braganca, Brazil||Governance||Mangrove forest in Bragança, Brazil||Missing|
|Gili Trawangan Coastal Tourism||Governance||Coral reefs, coast and small-island on and surrounding Gili Trawangan, Indonesia||Missing|
|Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica fisheries governance||Governance||Gulf of Nicoya fisheries||Missing|
|Great Barrier Reef Marine Park||Governance||GBR coral cover||21-30% of peak stock or 71-80% of maximum pollution level (3)||Based on De'ath paper http://www.pnas.org/content/109/44/17995.full|
|Montreal Protocol||Biophysical||Ozone||Missing||Missing in case- Limited knowledge about ozone conditions at the beginning of this snapshot|
|Montreal Protocol||Biophysical||Ozone Depleting Substances||Missing||Missing in case - Emissions of ODS were not explicitly monitored during the early part of this snapshot|
|Macquarie Island Marine Park||Governance||Macquarie Island Royal Penguin||91-100% of peak stock or 0-10% of maximum pollution level (10)||Estimates suggest that population in 2001 has remained around the 850,000 breeding pairs estimated in the 1980's|
|Wakatobi National Park||Governance||Wakatobi coral cover||31-40% of peak stock or 61-70% of maximum pollution level (4)||Hard coral cover is estimated to be around 35–40% (Clifton 2013) #Hard coral cover declined from 46.7 (±3.4) % in 2002 to 22.2 (±4.0) % in 2007 (McMellor and Smith 2010)?|
|Wakatobi National Park||Governance||Wakatobi fish spawning||Missing|
|Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR)||Governance||Galapagos Green Turtle||Some baseline data from 1970s and 80s. Then monitoring from 2001/2 - Quinta Playa had 2668 nests and Bahia Baharona had 2240 nests. (Zarate 2006)|
|Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Marine National Monument||Governance||NWHI Green Turtle||2005 = 350 nests/year (Kittenger et al. 2013)|
|Central California National Marine Sanctuaries||Governance||California Humpback Whale||21-30% of peak stock or 71-80% of maximum pollution level (3)||The original, unexploited North Pacific population of humpback whales has been estimated as approximately 15,000 animals (Allen, 1980; Rice, 1978). About 8% (Braham 1984) existed at the beginning of the Sanctuaries designation (<1200 individuals). Mark-recapture from photo-identification in the Eastern North Pacific estimated 1,391 whales in 2002/03, with an increase of about 8% per year over the period 1991-2003, and the population was listed as Vulnerable at the beginning of this snapshot (1992) (IUCN 2015).|
|Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004)||Governance||Raja Ampat Coral Cover||21-30% of peak stock or 71-80% of maximum pollution level (3)||The average live hard coral cover for the MPA was 29.9% - Wilson et al. 2012 and see data in Mangubhai et al. 2012|
|Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004)||Governance||Raja Ampat Green Turtle||Missing||no baseline data|
|Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004)||Governance||Raja Ampat Reef Fish||Missing|
|Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters)||Governance||GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Southern Right Whale||11-20% of peak stock or 81-90% of maximum pollution level (2)||The original, unexploited southern right whale population has been estimated to be from 55, 000 - 70, 000 whales in 1770. In 1997, it was estimated that 17%, or around 1200, of the global southern right whale population occurred in Australia (based on a global abundance of 7000) (IWC 2001). If this number is correct, the southern right whale population in Australian at the beginning of the time period being examined (2000) is 12 - 15% of the original, unexploited population numbers (~1458 whales in 2000 compared to an original, unexploited population of 9350 - 11, 900 in Australia (based on IWC 17% estimation)).|
|Svalbard Nature Reserves||Governance||Svalbard Shrimp||31-40% of peak stock or 61-70% of maximum pollution level (4)||The Norwegian biomass estimates for the Svalbard-Barents Sea region indicate that stock in 2004 were about 30-40% of the historical maximum (NAFO 2012a). (However, the historical maximum does not necessarily represent a stable population and may be above the carrying capacity). Russian surveys in different regions estimate that the biomass was slightly higher relative to the maximum.|
|Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters)||Governance||GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Southern Bluefin Tuna||11-20% of peak stock or 81-90% of maximum pollution level (2)|
|Seaflower MPA||Governance||Seaflower coral reefs||Missing||NO DATA|
|Cenderwasih National Park||Governance||Cenderwasih target fish||Missing||No baseline data|
|California squid||Governance||California market squid (Loligo opalescens)||91-100% of peak stock or 0-10% of maximum pollution level (10)||No evidence of stock being decreased.|
|Pond aquaculture on Lombok, Indonesia||Governance||Lombok aquaculture irrigation canals||Not Applicable|
|Pond aquaculture on Lombok, Indonesia||Governance||Lombok aquaculture irrigation canals|
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.