IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uto/dipeco/201316.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The tragedy of the park: an agent-based model on endogenous and exogenous institutions for the management of a forest

Author

Abstract

Many scholars of common pool resources discovered that institutions may solve the tragedy of the commons. I will address a particular situation of management of natural resources: that of a protected area. In this situation interests differ. Local rural inhabitants care about the quality of their environment, but also need to exploit the resources for livelihood reasons. An external entity, being the State or a donor, or an NGO, or all of them together, decides that there is the need of nature Conservation in that area. Because of some evidence of failure of strictly top-down conservationist approach, the external entity decides to apply the concept of participatory conservation: the local inhabitants become stakeholders in the management of the area and they become collectively responsible for conservation, having in turn the right to exploit the resources up to so me degree. I argue that project designers try to find a solution to nature conservation through the creation of a situation of a commons: creating a community that has rights and duties towards a particular natural area that is endowed with some resources. Many scholars rely mostly on institutions which are endogenously created within the users’ community in order to avoid the “tragedy”. However, what happens if institutions are imposed? In participatory conservation initiatives the community has collective rights over the resources, and in this sense the issue of endogenous rules for the commons management is relevant. However, the level to which the community should exploit the resource is usually i mposed by the external project designers. Using agent-based simulations we develop a theoretical model in order to look at the consequences of an imposed institution on the state of a forest and on the profit of the users, taking into account the possibilities of violating the imposed rules, and that of facing enforcement. We compare the consequences of this imposed institution with those deriving from an endogenously created institution. We will also analyze the interaction between the different kinds of institutions and the individual perceptions of each agent. Many results of the model confirm quantitative and qualitative findings of the literature: the presence of institutions and enforcement improve the management of the resource with respect to an open access situation, with different degree of success depending on the kind of institution in place. The two main counterintuitive findings are the following. First, an exogenous institution imposed by external agents may crowd out agents’ intrinsic environmental motivations. Second, when an imposed exogenous institution is in place, the most effective rule is one allowing sufficient degree of access to the resources for the agents, provided that an adequate rule enforcement is implemented.

Suggested Citation

  • Vallino, Elena, 2013. "The tragedy of the park: an agent-based model on endogenous and exogenous institutions for the management of a forest," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201316, University of Turin.
  • Handle: RePEc:uto:dipeco:201316
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.est.unito.it/do/home.pl/Download?doc=/allegati/wp2013dip/wp_16_2013.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cardenas, Juan Camilo & Stranlund, John & Willis, Cleve, 2000. "Local Environmental Control and Institutional Crowding-Out," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 28(10), pages 1719-1733, October.
    2. Leach, Melissa & Mearns, Robin & Scoones, Ian, 1999. "Environmental Entitlements: Dynamics and Institutions in Community-Based Natural Resource Management," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 225-247, February.
    3. Maria Claudia Lopez & James J. Murphy & John M. Spraggon & John K. Stranlund, 2012. "Comparing The Effectiveness Of Regulation And Pro‐Social Emotions To Enhance Cooperation: Experimental Evidence From Fishing Communities In Colombia," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 50(1), pages 131-142, January.
    4. Douglass C. North, 2005. "Introduction to Understanding the Process of Economic Change," Introductory Chapters, in: Understanding the Process of Economic Change, Princeton University Press.
    5. Bromley, Daniel W., 2008. "Resource degradation in the African commons: accounting for institutional decay," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(5), pages 539-563, October.
    6. Peter Deadman & Edella Schlager & Randy Gimblett, 2000. "Simulating Common Pool Resource Management Experiments with Adaptive Agents Employing Alternate Communication Routines," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 3(2), pages 1-2.
    7. Ruttan, Lore M., 2008. "Economic Heterogeneity and the Commons: Effects on Collective Action and Collective Goods Provisioning," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 969-985, May.
    8. Ostrom, Elinor, 2006. "The value-added of laboratory experiments for the study of institutions and common-pool resources," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 149-163, October.
    9. Hayes, Tanya M., 2006. "Parks, People, and Forest Protection: An Institutional Assessment of the Effectiveness of Protected Areas," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(12), pages 2064-2075, December.
    10. Matthew Auer, 2006. "Contexts, multiple methods, and values in the study of common-pool resources," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(1), pages 215-227.
    11. Gibson, Clark C. & Williams, John T. & Ostrom, Elinor, 2005. "Local Enforcement and Better Forests," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 273-284, February.
    12. Joshua M. Epstein & Robert L. Axtell, 1996. "Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262550253.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vallino, Elena & Aldahsev,Gani, 2013. "NGOs and participatory conservation in developing countries: why are there inefficiencies?," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201318, University of Turin.
    2. Mitja Steinbacher & Matthias Raddant & Fariba Karimi & Eva Camacho Cuena & Simone Alfarano & Giulia Iori & Thomas Lux, 2021. "Advances in the agent-based modeling of economic and social behavior," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 1(7), pages 1-24, July.
    3. Federica VIGANO & Andrea SALUSTRI, 2015. "Matching profit and Non-profit Needs: How NPOs and Cooperative Contribute to Growth in Time of Crisis. A Quantitative Approach," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 86(1), pages 157-178, March.
    4. Aldashev, Gani & Vallino, Elena, 2019. "The dilemma of NGOs and participatory conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 1-1.

    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. Elinor Ostrom & Harini Nagendra, 2007. "Tenure alone is not sufficient: monitoring is essential," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 8(3), pages 175-199, September.
    2. Chávez, Carlos A. & Murphy, James J. & Stranlund, John K., 2018. "Managing and defending the commons: Experimental evidence from TURFs in Chile," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 229-246.
    3. Anderies, John M. & Janssen, Marco A. & Bousquet, François & Cardenas, Juan-Camilo & Castillo, Daniel & Lopez, Maria-Claudio & Tobias, Robert & Vollan, Björn & Wutich, Amber, 2011. "The challenge of understanding decisions in experimental studies of common pool resource governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1571-1579, July.
    4. Carlos A. Chávez & James J. Murphy & John K. Stranlund, 2019. "Co-enforcement of Common Pool Resources: Experimental Evidence from TURFs in Chile," Working Papers 2019-01, University of Alaska Anchorage, Department of Economics.
    5. Yeboah-Assiamah, Emmanuel & Muller, Kobus & Domfeh, Kwame Ameyaw, 2017. "Institutional assessment in natural resource governance: A conceptual overview," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-12.
    6. Shaun Larcom & Terry Gevelt, 2019. "Do Voluntary Commons Associations Deliver Sustainable Grazing Outcomes? An Empirical Study of England," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(1), pages 51-74, May.
    7. de Melo, Gioia & Piaggio, Matías, 2015. "The perils of peer punishment: Evidence from a common pool resource framed field experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 376-393.
    8. Maria Claudia Lopez & James J. Murphy & John M. Spraggon & John K. Stranlund, 2013. "Does government regulation complement existing community efforts to support cooperation? Evidence from field experiments in Colombia," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 12, pages 346-366, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Fijnanda van Klingeren, 2020. "Playing nice in the sandbox: On the role of heterogeneity, trust and cooperation in common-pool resources," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-36, August.
    10. Flaminio Squazzoni, 2010. "The impact of agent-based models in the social sciences after 15 years of incursions," History of Economic Ideas, Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa - Roma, vol. 18(2), pages 197-234.
    11. Velez, Maria Alejandra & Stranlund, John K. & Murphy, James J., 2012. "Preferences for government enforcement of a common pool harvest quota: Theory and experimental evidence from fishing communities in Colombia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 185-192.
    12. Juan Camilo Cardenas & Luz Angela Rodríguez & Nancy Johnson, 2014. "Vertical Collective Action: Addressing Vertical Asymmetries in Watershed Management," Documentos CEDE 012608, Universidad de los Andes - CEDE.
    13. Elinor Ostrom, 2014. "Do institutions for collective action evolve?," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 3-30, April.
    14. Vallino, Elena & Aldahsev,Gani, 2013. "NGOs and participatory conservation in developing countries: why are there inefficiencies?," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201318, University of Turin.
    15. Villena, Mauricio G. & Zecchetto, Franco, 2011. "Subject-specific performance information can worsen the tragedy of the commons: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 330-347, June.
    16. Daniel A. DeCaro & Marco A. Janssen & Allen Lee, 2015. "Synergistic effects of voting and enforcement on internalized motivation to cooperate in a resource dilemma," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(6), pages 511-537, November.
    17. Wang, Yahua & Chen, Chunliang & Araral, Eduardo, 2016. "The Effects of Migration on Collective Action in the Commons: Evidence from Rural China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 79-93.
    18. Alpízar, F. & Gsottbauer, E., 2015. "Reputation and household recycling practices: Field experiments in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 366-375.
    19. Ostrom, Elinor, 2006. "The value-added of laboratory experiments for the study of institutions and common-pool resources," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 149-163, October.
    20. Handberg, Øyvind Nystad & Angelsen, Arild, 2015. "Experimental tests of tropical forest conservation measures," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 346-359.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:uto:dipeco:201316. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/detorit.html .

    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: Piero Cavaleri or Marina Grazioli (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/detorit.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.