Figure 1
Frequency of case study contexts aggregated across all meta-analysis studies, including both (a) resource context and (b) property rights.
Figure 2
The number of success indicators used by large-N, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews of social-ecological systems and common pool resources.
Table 1
Definitions of dimensions of success and exemplary quotes.
| Level | Dimensions of success | Definition | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutional or collective choice | Participation or inclusion | Participation, inclusion, or empowering resource users | Provide fair participatory, management, and access rights (Pagdee et al. 2006; p. 43) |
| Effective management | Effective management or governance of natural resource systems | …I am applying a working description of effective and successful CBNRM organizations as those organizations that are making progress toward increased efficiency and effectiveness of natural resource management (Gruber 2010) | |
| Operational level | Behavior or attitude change | Behavioral outcomes, such as trust, reciprocity, positive interactions, or stewardship | Positive PA–community relationship means PA staff and the local community have good contact and interaction; they tolerate and relate well whereas negative PA–community relationship means PA staff and the local community have no interaction or no tolerance and do not relate well (Mutanga et al. 2015; p. 9) |
| Sustainable appropriation | Sustainable appropriation or use of resources | …success reflects positive changes in views of conservation goals, decreased off-take, improved outcomes for the habitat or species of interest, and a variety of livelihood benefits, respectively (Brooks et al. 2012; p. 1) | |
| Demand-side provisioning | Resource quality, condition, response, productivity, diversity, or collapse | …the extent to which MPAs fulfil their ecological potential, or conservation value, characterized as ecological response of fish communities… (Edgar et al. 2014; p. 216) | |
| Socio-economic | Socio-economic benefits | Equity, economic indicators, livelihoods or social welfare | We consider three outcomes: livelihood contributions of commons for users, sustainability of the commons (ecological or social/institutional), and equity of the allocation of benefits from the commons (Agrawal and Benson 2011; p. 201) |
| Temporal | Functional stability | Resilience, institutional fit and stability | Ecological objectives: condition of resource; stability, sustainability; productivity, resilience; biodiversity; avoiding or halting environmental degradation (Frey 2013; p. 5) |
| Other | Inductive | Definition inductively determined | Our query sought to take stock of the successes and failures of ACM by systematically analyzing all 108 items (Plummer et al. 2012; p. 8) |
Table 2
Results of three ordered logistic regression models and an overall model of factors explaining the variance in the number of dimensions of success: (1) resource systems, (2) methods, and (3) property systems included in the study (positive coefficient indicates that factor related to more definitions of success used).
| Independent variables | Model 1: Resource system | Model 2: Methods | Model 3: Property | Overall Model | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coef. | [95% CI] | Coef. | [95% CI] | Coef. | [95% CI] | Coef. | [95% CI] | |||||
| Forestry | –0.160 | –1.79 | 1.47 | |||||||||
| Fishery | 1.05 | –0.400 | 2.49 | |||||||||
| Grass/rangeland | –2.12* | –4.10 | –0.138 | –1.94* | –3.67 | –0.215 | ||||||
| Irrigation | 2.42** | 0.734 | 4.11 | |||||||||
| Wildlife | 0.995 | –0.766 | 2.76 | |||||||||
| Scale | 0.439 | –0.613 | 1.49 | |||||||||
| Qualitative | 0.531 | –1.56 | 2.63 | |||||||||
| Correlative | –1.89* | –3.36 | –0.424 | –2.14** | –3.52 | –0.756 | ||||||
| Comparative | –0.066 | –1.42 | 1.29 | |||||||||
| Power | –1.22 | –3.38 | 0.934 | |||||||||
| Tradeoffs | 1.13 | –0.238 | 2.49 | |||||||||
| Empirical data | –1.42 | –3.91 | 1.08 | |||||||||
| Literature-based | –0.047 | –1.62 | 1.52 | |||||||||
| Co-management | 0.380 | –0.968 | 1.73 | |||||||||
| Common property | –0.924 | –2.39 | 0.544 | |||||||||
| Private property | –17.7 | –4110 | 4074 | |||||||||
| State property | –2.35* | –4.19 | –0.501 | –1.89* | –3.86 | 0.102 | ||||||
| N | 45 | 45 | 45 | 45 | ||||||||
| McFadden R2 | 0.1613 | 0.185 | 0.224 | 0.266 | ||||||||
| LR Chi2 | 15.37 | 16.3 | 21.37 | 25.39 | ||||||||
| Prob > F | 0.0089 | 0.0383 | 0.0003 | <0.0001 | ||||||||
[i] Significance levels of α = 0.05 and α = 0.01 are indicated with “*” and “**” respectively. Trending coefficients at level α = 0.1 are indicated with a “†”.
Table 3
Definitions of problem orientations and exemplary quotes.
| Level | Problem orientation | Definition | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutional or collective choice | Participation or inclusion | Co-management, inclusive decision-making, participation, and shared power arrangements | Formalized local participation in forest governance via decentralization is often viewed as a key mechanism to provide incentives to local communities to use forests sustainably (Persha et al. 2011; p. 1606) |
| Governance or management | Effectiveness of governance at an unspecified level | Understanding how forest commons can be managed and governed better is important…(Chhatre and Agrawal 2009; p. 13286) | |
| Operational level | Operational rules | An expressed need to address specific challenges to specific operational rules | MPAs often fail to reach their full potential as a consequence of factors such as illegal harvesting, regulations that legally allow detrimental harvesting, or emigration of animals… (Edgar et al. 2014 p. 216) |
| Appropriation | Exploitation of the resource that affects other users | …many scholars interested in local level sustainable outcomes either assert or imply a positive relationship between greater socio-economic equality and more sustainable resource use (Anderrson and Agrawal 2011; p. 866) | |
| Demand-side provisioning | Extinction problems, biodiversity loss, ecosystem services, or degraded productive capacity | Slowing tropical deforestation and forest degradation remains an enormous challenge at both national and global scales… (Porter-Bolland et al. 2011; p. 1) | |
| Property rights | Common property situations, lack of private property rights, open access | Why are actively managed fisheries systematically overexploited? … Because individuals lack secure rights to part of the quota… (Costello et al. 2008 pp. 1678–1679) | |
| Socio-economic outcomes | Socio-economic benefits | Reducing inequality, supporting livelihoods, well-being and economic development | …some fisheries co-management initiatives have improved both ecosystems conditions, and the livelihoods of resource users (MacNeil and Cinner 2013; p. 1) |
| Temporal | Functional stability | Adapting to changing conditions, and long-term resilience | … past models of success are being confronted by unprecedented changes due to globalization and climate change. (Baggio et al. 2016 p. 3) |
Figure 3
Frequency of a) problem orientations b) and definitions of success aggregated across all studies. Note: the codes are defined in Table 1 and 3.
Table 4
Problem orientations and associated dimensions of success based on a Spearman’s Rank correlation matrix.
| Problem orientation | Associated dimension of success | Spearman’s ρ | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operational rules | Socio-economic benefits | –0.3989 | 0.0066 |
| Demand-side provisioning | Effective management | –0.373 | 0.0117 |
| Functional stability | –0.351 | 0.0181 | |
| Socio-economic benefits | Inductive definition of success | 0.346 | 0.0200 |
| Functional stability | Effective management | 0.419 | 0.0041 |
| Functional stability | 0.419 | 0.0041 |