Table 1
Success by activity.
| No (0) | Yes (1) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Forestry | 11 (44%) | 14 (56%) | 25 (36%) |
| Irrigation | 10 (42%) | 14 (58%) | 24 (35%) |
| Fisheries | 9 (45%) | 11 (55%) | 20 (29%) |
| Total | 30 (43%) | 39 (57%) | 69 |
Table 2
Summary statistics for the 11 DPs as defined by Cox et al. (2010).
| Design principle (Symbol in parenthesis) | Values | Total (%) | Irrigation (%) | Fishery (%) | Forestry (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clearly defined social boundaries (1A) | Missing | 2 (3%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (10%) | 0 (0%) |
| Absence (0) | 16 (24%) | 6 (25%) | 4 (22%) | 6 (24%) | |
| Presence (1) | 51 (76%) | 18 (75%) | 14 (78%) | 19 (76%) | |
| Clearly defined biophysical boundaries (1B) | Missing | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Absence (0) | 9 (13%) | 4 (17%) | 3 (15%) | 2 (8%) | |
| Presence (1) | 60 (87%) | 20 (83%) | 17 (85%) | 23 (92%) | |
| Congruence between local conditions and rules | Missing | 7 (10%) | 1 (4%) | 4 (20%) | 2 (8%) |
| (2A) | Absence (0) | 26 (42%) | 8 (35%) | 7 (44%) | 11 (48%) |
| Presence (1) | 36 (58%) | 15 (65%) | 9 (56%) | 12 (52%) | |
| Investment/Extraction proportionality (2B) | Missing | 18 (26%) | 2 (8%) | 8 (40%) | 8 (32%) |
| Absence (0) | 18 (35%) | 7 (32%) | 5 (42%) | 6 (35%) | |
| Presence (1) | 33 (65%) | 15 (68%) | 7 (58%) | 11 (65%) | |
| Collective choice arrangements (3) | Missing | 9 (13%) | 0 (0%) | 7 (35%) | 2 (8%) |
| Absence (0) | 15 (25%) | 6 (25%) | 2 (15%) | 7 (30%) | |
| Presence (1) | 45 (75%) | 18 (75%) | 11 (85%) | 16 (70%) | |
| Monitoring (4A) | Missing | 7 (10%) | 2 (8%) | 4 (20%) | 1 (4%) |
| Absence (0) | 16 (26%) | 5 (23%) | 4 (25%) | 7 (29%) | |
| Presence (1) | 46 (74%) | 17 (77%) | 12 (75%) | 17 (71%) | |
| Monitoring the monitors (4B) | Missing | 17 (27%) | 2 (8%) | 13 (65%) | 2 (8%) |
| Absence (0) | 14 (27%) | 7 (32%) | 1 (14%) | 6 (26%) | |
| Presence (1) | 38 (73%) | 15 (68%) | 6 (86%) | 17 (74%) | |
| Graduated sanctions (5) | Missing | 21 (30%) | 6 (25%) | 12 (60%) | 3 (12%) |
| Absence (0) | 21 (44%) | 8 (44%) | 4 (50%) | 9 (41%) | |
| Presence (1) | 27 (56%) | 10 (56%) | 4 (50%) | 13 (59%) | |
| Conflict-resolution mechanisms (6) | Missing | 13 (19%) | 0 (0%) | 9 (45%) | 4 (16%) |
| (6) | Absence (0) | 14 (25%) | 6 (25%) | 3 (27%) | 5 (24%) |
| Presence (1) | 42 (75%) | 18 (75%) | 8 (73%) | 16 (76%) | |
| Rights to organize (7) | Missing | 7 (10%) | 2 (8%) | 3 (15%) | 2 (8%) |
| Absence (0) | 14 (23%) | 2 (9%) | 5 (29%) | 7 (30%) | |
| Presence (1) | 48 (77%) | 20 (91%) | 12 (71%) | 16 (70%) | |
| Nestedness (8) | Missing | 16 (23%) | 0 (0%) | 8 (40%) | 8 (32%) |
| Absence (0) | 13 (25%) | 7 (29%) | 1 (8%) | 5 (29%) | |
| Presence (1) | 40 (75%) | 17 (71%) | 11 (92%) | 12 (71%) |
Figure 1
Percentage of successful and unsuccessful cases by number of DPs, shown for all cases (top-right), and by activity.
Table 3
Success rate difference depending on activity and number of DPs.
| Irrigation | Fishery | Forestry | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Less than 6 | 30% | 0% | 20% |
| More than 9 | 86% | 100% | 83% |
Figure 2
DPs co-occurrence in cases of successful and non-successful cases (data normalized by success). Color (represented by the scale on the right of the figure) indicates the frequency of DP co-occurrence scaled between 0 (never co-occur) and 1 (always co-occur) DPs are often grouped and co-occur, DPs in isolation do not contribute to success, further, there are groups of DPs that seem to co-occur more often in cases of success and are almost completely absent in non-successful cases, e.g. DPs 2A and 2B which co-occur very rarely in cases of non-success. DPs co-occur always with themselves, thus the diagonal is dark red as the frequency of co-occurrence=1.
Figure 3
Design principle co-occurrence in successful and non-successful irrigation, fishery, and forestry. Data normalized by activity and success – i.e. the number of time DPs co-occur is divided by the total cases that are not-successful per activity (left column graphs) or successful per activity (right column graph). Color (represented by the scale on the right of the figure) indicates the frequency of DP co-occurrence scaled between 0 (never co-occur) and 1 (always co-occur). Co-occurrence increases in successful cases and different activities have different co-occurrence patterns. Irrigation systems were successful when a very high number of DPs co-occur, while fisheries needed a lower number of co-occurring DPs to be successful, with forestry cases ranking somewhere in between. The number of DPs needed for success may relate to the mobility of the resource, their re-growth rate and by the amount of hard human-made infrastructure needed. DPs co-occur always with themselves thus the diagonal is dark red (i.e. normalized frequency=1).
Figure 4
Percentage of successful and non-successful cases by number of DPs only for cases without missing data. Graphs are presented for all cases (top-left), and by activity. Complete cases show a clear division between the number of DPs and success/non-success.
Figure 5
Importance of specific DPs in determining CPR Success. This figure represents the frequency that a given DP is a part of a set of DPs leading to a successful case, as well as the frequency that a given DP is part of a set of principles leading to a non-successful case. For each DP, we report the average frequency, frequency given in case of missing values=0 and missing=1 (data are reported in Table A8). DPs located in the top left region of the graph are more likely to be present in successful cases, and absent in unsuccessful cases, while DPs located in the top right region of the graph are likely to be present in both successful and unsuccessful cases. If we were to find DPs located in the bottom left region of the graph, they would be not significant (not present in either successful or non-successful cases), while if DPs were located in the bottom right region of the graph, they would be prone to be detrimental to success (they are disproportionally present in case of non-successful cases and almost always non-present in successful cases). This figure highlights the importance of congruence between social and environmental conditions and rules and proportionality between investment and extraction (2A and 2B).
Figure 6
Specific soft human-made infrastructure requirement depending on hard human-made infrastructure intensity and natural infrastructure mobility. Based on our analysis we highlight which DPs are important for different combinations of natural and hard human-made infrastructure. While congruence (2A and 2B) is ubiquitous, mobility and intensity determine the importance of different DPs. Graduated sanctions (5) and monitoring (4A and 4B) assume importance when the natural infrastructure has a lesser degree of mobility, while the type of monitoring is dependent on the intensity of the hard human-made infrastructure. Clearly defined social boundaries (1A), on the other hand, acquires importance with increased natural infrastructure mobility.