Hi... I am not sure the exact question. But as far as I know, the tragedy of the common refers to the use of a 'public resource' that anybody can gain assess to. In other words, its like a 'free for all' resource base. Suppose you have a fishing ground and its initially used by just 2-3 fishermen. They live their lives around this fishing ground catching fish and have enough fish to eat as the stocks are not depleted because the resource can replenish itself through reproduction. These fishermen basically live on the 'interests' generated by the natural capital, very much like how it works in the bank. But however things change as a huge group of say 200 people move into this fishing ground. They also tried to fish for a living. For awhile, it still seems fine but after sometime, since the fishing activities are now more intensive, more fish stocks are drawn upon such at there are not enough fish to relenish the supply, leading to fishery collapse. Again, this is very much like in the bank. If you keep drawing on your initial capital, ultimately, you will finish drawing your savings. This is a rough idea of the tragedy of the commons. Hope it helps to spur up discussion=)
Here is something I put together quickly, not quite finished but it is a start, we also need to identify if there were any cultural differences between our communal systems!
Tragedy of the Commons. The idea that where there is no clear ownership of rights to a natural resource, the users of the resource are likely to overexploit it. (symposia.cbc.amnh.org/archives/seascapes/glossary.html)
A commons is a resource that is has no clear ownership of rights and is seen by many as something that can be taken from at will.
Examples of some that have worked Carpooling; where 2 or more people share a vehicle to get to work, saving petrol and reducing their carbon footprint.
Examples of some that haven’t worked The fridge in my house, people take what they want and don’t restock according to what has been used, just add what they want to use in the future and forget about others interests. Over fishing in some areas, one or two fishermen start by overexploiting an area, they become successful and expand their businesses and soon four or five big companies are over using the area. Soon enough the number of fish caught are no longer profitable and they abandon the area having overfished it. Mining companies cutting huge open-cut mines in the earth, leaving big scars on the land. Soon the minerals of interest diminish and the miners move on, leaving a big pit with little or no future value to anyone.
Key indicating factors that will influence whether or not a commons will be utilised sustainability rely on governing bodies. A Government needs to step in early and impose retractions to insure the resource will be managed sustainably.
Many communal systems fail as the profit for members increase and decrease so quickly that governing bodies have no chance to influence the users. Profits increasing quickly would mean that companies try and keep the resource a secret, and once they profits drop they will try and keep that a secret so as to gain the maximum price for the rights to use the resource when they sell it.
2. List some examples of communal systems that you have been a part of and identify which ones have worked and which have not.
3. What are some of the key determinants that dictate whether the communal systems identified in the examples above have worked or not?
4. Why is it that some communal systems involved in the management of resources work while others don't?
5. Were there any distinct international/cultural differences between Singapore and Australia that explain why some communal systems worked, while others did not? If not, why not?
So far, we have agreed upon a commons as being a limited resource that is generally available to everyone - the related problems or 'tragedy' occur when different interests acting on the same resource cause it to be depleted/overexploited. Examples mentioned include fishing grounds, money, carpooling, shared fridge, mining. Others are farming land, ground water, forest. In terms of whether the communal systems work or not, cedrictyz said resources such as fish can replenish if allowed enough time to reproduce, so this is one determining factor. Jim talked about government action - management regimes and policy to promote sustainable use of the resources. It seems the most successful communal systems are those that collectively focus on managing/sustaining the resource, whereas the 'every user for themself' approach doesn't usually work.
I think we might need to get everybody from both groups onto this blog before we can finalise the question responses though, particularly our different views of what makes a good communal system.
Hi... My humble answer to try to answer the questions:
Question 1: Commons I think should refer to a communal resource that is open to people to come in and use it without really any form of private ownership.
Question 2 & 3: From the discussion so far, I think that some key determinants whether the systems have worked anot is through the environmental and resource impacts and assessment. What I mean by this is to investigate and outweigh the negative externalities through the use of the resource and determine whether the resource use rate is higher than its ability to replace itself etc. Earlier I've talked about fishing resources and how improper mamagement when the resource becomes known to more people and a 'free for all' attitude comes in without any form of proper management in place. As mentioned by crystal, this 'every user for himself' approach don't usually work. This is especially true if the exploitation rate exceeds the replenishment rate. For example, a fishing community near a communal fishing zone usually fish enough to feed their own families and the community has been there for centuries and the resource use and needs of the community needs are balanced. What if one day everyone tried to catch as much as they can to sell for money? This is probably one factor that needs to be considered. External factors etc etc. Some may talk about privatising the resource but usually that may lead to an even mor intense round of exploitation such as fishing grounds collapses in some parts of the world because of overuse.
Question 4: It is really very difficult to determine how well to manage a communal system as absolute amounts of resources in an area is also hard to determine. External factors may have an influence. Overcatching of fish may be underreported although 'management' systems seem to be in place. The spawning grounds of the young fishes may also be at a different place thus if the habitat of the young fishes at the spawning ground elsewhere are destroyed etc, it may affect the number of fishes returning to the original fishing ground. This is something the management system at a place cannot control as it happens elsewhere and it is very difficult to predict the number of fishes returning. In another instance, if the fishing community is at a river downstream, damming activities upstream as well as blasting of reefs and rocks upstream may result in a loss of habitats for fishes upstream such as in the Mekong river. This can also affect catches downstream even if management systems are put in place downstream.
Question 5: I am not very sure if there are any distinct cultural systems between Singapore and Australia but certainly there is something I can think of in Singapore. Due to the shortage of land, most Singaporeans are packed into high-rise buildings and we live there all our lives. Certainly, since people live in such close proximity to one another, one's action would no doubt, most of the time have an effect upon others. For example, smoking at the corridors and common lifts have a negative impact upon others' rights to clean air. Vandalism of public property in which no one has an ownership to also affects others who are common users of the facility. Noise pollution created by people jamming their car accelerators in the public carparks are some example I can think of. I do not know if my examples are applicable but certainly, I can try to clarify if needed. Maybe the Australian students might want to try to give some answers to the questions?
Hi... I am not sure the exact question. But as far as I know, the tragedy of the common refers to the use of a 'public resource' that anybody can gain assess to. In other words, its like a 'free for all' resource base. Suppose you have a fishing ground and its initially used by just 2-3 fishermen. They live their lives around this fishing ground catching fish and have enough fish to eat as the stocks are not depleted because the resource can replenish itself through reproduction. These fishermen basically live on the 'interests' generated by the natural capital, very much like how it works in the bank. But however things change as a huge group of say 200 people move into this fishing ground. They also tried to fish for a living. For awhile, it still seems fine but after sometime, since the fishing activities are now more intensive, more fish stocks are drawn upon such at there are not enough fish to relenish the supply, leading to fishery collapse. Again, this is very much like in the bank. If you keep drawing on your initial capital, ultimately, you will finish drawing your savings. This is a rough idea of the tragedy of the commons. Hope it helps to spur up discussion=)
ReplyDeleteHere is something I put together quickly, not quite finished but it is a start, we also need to identify if there were any cultural differences between our communal systems!
ReplyDeleteTragedy of the Commons.
The idea that where there is no clear ownership of rights to a natural resource, the users of the resource are likely to overexploit it.
(symposia.cbc.amnh.org/archives/seascapes/glossary.html)
A commons is a resource that is has no clear ownership of rights and is seen by many as something that can be taken from at will.
Examples of some that have worked
Carpooling; where 2 or more people share a vehicle to get to work, saving petrol and reducing their carbon footprint.
Examples of some that haven’t worked
The fridge in my house, people take what they want and don’t restock according to what has been used, just add what they want to use in the future and forget about others interests.
Over fishing in some areas, one or two fishermen start by overexploiting an area, they become successful and expand their businesses and soon four or five big companies are over using the area. Soon enough the number of fish caught are no longer profitable and they abandon the area having overfished it.
Mining companies cutting huge open-cut mines in the earth, leaving big scars on the land. Soon the minerals of interest diminish and the miners move on, leaving a big pit with little or no future value to anyone.
Key indicating factors that will influence whether or not a commons will be utilised sustainability rely on governing bodies. A Government needs to step in early and impose retractions to insure the resource will be managed sustainably.
Many communal systems fail as the profit for members increase and decrease so quickly that governing bodies have no chance to influence the users. Profits increasing quickly would mean that companies try and keep the resource a secret, and once they profits drop they will try and keep that a secret so as to gain the maximum price for the rights to use the resource when they sell it.
Ok, so the 5 questions we need to answer are:
ReplyDelete1. What is a commons?
2. List some examples of communal systems that you have been a part of and identify which ones have worked and which have not.
3. What are some of the key determinants that dictate whether the communal systems identified in the examples above have worked or not?
4. Why is it that some communal systems involved in the management of resources work while others don't?
5. Were there any distinct international/cultural differences between Singapore and Australia that explain why some communal systems worked, while others did not? If not, why not?
So far, we have agreed upon a commons as being a limited resource that is generally available to everyone - the related problems or 'tragedy' occur when different interests acting on the same resource cause it to be depleted/overexploited.
Examples mentioned include fishing grounds, money, carpooling, shared fridge, mining. Others are farming land, ground water, forest.
In terms of whether the communal systems work or not, cedrictyz said resources such as fish can replenish if allowed enough time to reproduce, so this is one determining factor. Jim talked about government action - management regimes and policy to promote sustainable use of the resources.
It seems the most successful communal systems are those that collectively focus on managing/sustaining the resource, whereas the 'every user for themself' approach doesn't usually work.
I think we might need to get everybody from both groups onto this blog before we can finalise the question responses though, particularly our different views of what makes a good communal system.
Hi... My humble answer to try to answer the questions:
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1: Commons I think should refer to a communal resource that is open to people to come in and use it without really any form of private ownership.
Question 2 & 3: From the discussion so far, I think that some key determinants whether the systems have worked anot is through the environmental and resource impacts and assessment. What I mean by this is to investigate and outweigh the negative externalities through the use of the resource and determine whether the resource use rate is higher than its ability to replace itself etc. Earlier I've talked about fishing resources and how improper mamagement when the resource becomes known to more people and a 'free for all' attitude comes in without any form of proper management in place. As mentioned by crystal, this 'every user for himself' approach don't usually work. This is especially true if the exploitation rate exceeds the replenishment rate. For example, a fishing community near a communal fishing zone usually fish enough to feed their own families and the community has been there for centuries and the resource use and needs of the community needs are balanced. What if one day everyone tried to catch as much as they can to sell for money? This is probably one factor that needs to be considered. External factors etc etc. Some may talk about privatising the resource but usually that may lead to an even mor intense round of exploitation such as fishing grounds collapses in some parts of the world because of overuse.
Question 4: It is really very difficult to determine how well to manage a communal system as absolute amounts of resources in an area is also hard to determine. External factors may have an influence. Overcatching of fish may be underreported although 'management' systems seem to be in place. The spawning grounds of the young fishes may also be at a different place thus if the habitat of the young fishes at the spawning ground elsewhere are destroyed etc, it may affect the number of fishes returning to the original fishing ground. This is something the management system at a place cannot control as it happens elsewhere and it is very difficult to predict the number of fishes returning. In another instance, if the fishing community is at a river downstream, damming activities upstream as well as blasting of reefs and rocks upstream may result in a loss of habitats for fishes upstream such as in the Mekong river. This can also affect catches downstream even if management systems are put in place downstream.
Question 5: I am not very sure if there are any distinct cultural systems between Singapore and Australia but certainly there is something I can think of in Singapore. Due to the shortage of land, most Singaporeans are packed into high-rise buildings and we live there all our lives. Certainly, since people live in such close proximity to one another, one's action would no doubt, most of the time have an effect upon others. For example, smoking at the corridors and common lifts have a negative impact upon others' rights to clean air. Vandalism of public property in which no one has an ownership to also affects others who are common users of the facility. Noise pollution created by people jamming their car accelerators in the public carparks are some example I can think of. I do not know if my examples are applicable but certainly, I can try to clarify if needed. Maybe the Australian students might want to try to give some answers to the questions?