IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i10p1704-d1501549.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Endangered Commons? Modeling the Effects of Demographic Trends Coupled with Admission Rules to Common Property Institutions

Author

Listed:
  • Cristina Dalla Torre

    (Institute for Regional Development, Eurac Research, 39100 Bolzano, Italy)

  • Rocco Scolozzi

    (Department of Sociology and Social Research, University of Trento, 38122 Trento, Italy)

  • Elisa Ravazzoli

    (Institute for Regional Development, Eurac Research, 39100 Bolzano, Italy)

  • Paola Gatto

    (Department of Land Environment, Agriculture and Forestry (TESAF), University of Padova, 35020 Legnaro, Italy)

Abstract

This study investigates the long-term effects of demographic trends and admission rules on common properties in the Province of Trento, Italy, which we refer to as historical commons. Historical commons have evolved into socio-ecological systems over the centuries, meaning that communities governed collectively natural resources and lands essential for community survival. Communities and the admission rules that determine their composition are an important constituting element of historical commons because they have developed local ecological knowledge and practices of sustainable use of natural resources. Our study hypothesizes that commons continuity is endangered because of the declining trend of the size of communities being influenced by demographic trends coupled with admission rules. Grounding our research in systems dynamics, we use empirical data including demographic projections and existing admission rules to simulate their effect on the site of the community using the Province of Trento, Italy, as our study region. To achieve that, three types of historical commons are identified: open, semi-open, and closed, each with different admission criteria based on inheritance and/or residency. Results indicate that inheritance-based admission rules can significantly reduce the number of commoners over time, potentially endangering the continuity of these self-governance institutions. The study discusses the results in light of the literature on historical commons’ continuity to evaluate different policies affecting the size of the community grounding on different mental models. The study concludes that a simulation approach can promote an anticipatory approach to the co-design of policies to ensure inclusive continuity of historical commons.

Suggested Citation

  • Cristina Dalla Torre & Rocco Scolozzi & Elisa Ravazzoli & Paola Gatto, 2024. "Endangered Commons? Modeling the Effects of Demographic Trends Coupled with Admission Rules to Common Property Institutions," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-18, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:10:p:1704-:d:1501549
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/10/1704/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/10/1704/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin L. Turner & Vincent Tidwell & Alexander Fernald & José A. Rivera & Sylvia Rodriguez & Steven Guldan & Carlos Ochoa & Brian Hurd & Kenneth Boykin & Andres Cibils, 2016. "Modeling Acequia Irrigation Systems Using System Dynamics: Model Development, Evaluation, and Sensitivity Analyses to Investigate Effects of Socio-Economic and Biophysical Feedbacks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-30, October.
    2. Alessandro Gretter & Marco Ciolli & Rocco Scolozzi, 2018. "Governing mountain landscapes collectively: local responses to emerging challenges within a systems thinking perspective," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(8), pages 1117-1130, November.
    3. Alberto Franco, L., 2013. "Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(3), pages 720-733.
    4. Gatto, Paola & Bogataj, Nevenka, 2015. "Disturbances, robustness and adaptation in forest commons: Comparative insights from two cases in the Southeastern Alps," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 56-64.
    5. Edella Schlager & Elinor Ostrom, 1992. "Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 249-262.
    6. Šmid Hribar, Mateja & Hori, Keiko & Urbanc, Mimi & Saito, Osamu & Zorn, Matija, 2023. "Evolution and new potentials of landscape commons: Insights from Japan and Slovenia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    7. Baur, Ivo & Binder, Claudia R., 2015. "Modeling and assessing scenarios of common property pastures management in Switzerland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 292-305.
    8. Lorenzini, Sara & von Jacobi, Nadia, 2024. "Whose forest? A two-level collective action perspective on struggles to reach polycentric governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    9. Grundel, Ida & Christenson, Nina & Dahlström, Margareta, 2022. "Identifying interests and values in forest areas through collaborative processes and landscape resource analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Šmid Hribar, Mateja & Hori, Keiko & Urbanc, Mimi & Saito, Osamu & Zorn, Matija, 2023. "Evolution and new potentials of landscape commons: Insights from Japan and Slovenia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    2. Bergstén, Sabina & Stjernström, Olof & Pettersson, Örjan, 2018. "Experiences and emotions among private forest owners versus public interests: Why ownership matters," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 801-811.
    3. David Aubin & Frédéric Varone, 2013. "Getting Access to Water: Property Rights or Public Policy Strategies?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 31(1), pages 154-167, February.
    4. Gani, Azmat & Scrimgeour, Frank, 2014. "Modeling governance and water pollution using the institutional ecological economic framework," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 363-372.
    5. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Bredahl Jacobsen, Jette & Poudyal, Mahesh & Rasoamanana, Alexandra & Hockley, Neal, 2018. "Estimating welfare impacts where property rights are contested: methodological and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 71-83.
    6. Rémy Herrera & Poeura Tetoe, 2013. "The Papua Niugini Paradox. Land property archaism and Modernity of peasant resistance ?," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00786274, HAL.
    7. Smith, Chris M. & Shaw, Duncan, 2019. "The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 403-416.
    8. Olegas Beriozovas & Dalia Perkumienė & Mindaugas Škėma & Abdellah Saoualih & Larbi Safaa & Marius Aleinikovas, 2024. "Research Advancement in Forest Property Rights: A Thematic Review over Half a Decade Using Natural Language Processing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-28, September.
    9. Leibbrandt, Andreas & Lynham, John, 2018. "Does the allocation of property rights matter in the commons?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 201-217.
    10. Massimiliano Gambardella, 2011. "The Scope of Open Licenses in Cultural Contents Production and Distribution," Working Papers hal-04140977, HAL.
    11. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    12. Rout, S., 2008. "Institutional and policy reforms in water sector in India: review of issues, concepts and trends," Conference Papers h042926, International Water Management Institute.
    13. Habibullah Magsi & Andre Torr & Yansui Liu & M. Javed Sheikh, 2017. "Land Use Conflicts in the Developing Countries: Proximate Driving Forces and Preventive Measures," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 56(1), pages 19-30.
    14. MAREK HUDON & BENJAMIN HUYBRECHTS & Anaïs PÉRILLEUX & Marthe NYSSENS, 2017. "Understanding Cooperative Finance As A New Common," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 88(2), pages 155-177, June.
    15. H.M. Tuihedur Rahman & Gordon M. Hickey, 2020. "An Analytical Framework for Assessing Context-Specific Rural Livelihood Vulnerability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-26, July.
    16. Julienne Brabet & Corinne Vercher- Chaptal & Lucy Taska, 2020. "From oligopolistic digital platforms to Open/Cooperative Ones?," Post-Print hal-03201454, HAL.
    17. Allendorf, Keera, 2007. "Do Women's Land Rights Promote Empowerment and Child Health in Nepal?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 1975-1988, November.
    18. Lami, Isabella M. & Tavella, Elena, 2019. "On the usefulness of soft OR models in decision making: A comparison of Problem Structuring Methods supported and self-organized workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(3), pages 1020-1036.
    19. Ghebru, Hosaena, 2015. "Is There a Merit to the Continuum Tenure Approach? A Case of Demand for Land Rights Formulation in Rural Mozambique," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211683, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Luoma, Jukka, 2016. "Model-based organizational decision making: A behavioral lens," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 816-826.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:10:p:1704-:d:1501549. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.