Cited by 2,460Climate Change Policy and EconomicsSustainability and Climate Change GovernanceInternational Environmental Law and Policies

Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change

Ostrom, Elinor·2010·Global Environmental Change

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Polycentric approaches potentially allow local user groups to devise locally appropriate rules, encourage experimentation and learning across jurisdictions, and enable mutual adjustment.

    “Potential advantages of polycentric approaches include the ability of local user groups to devise locally appropriate rules (McGinnis & Walker, 2010); the encouragement of experimentation and learning across jurisdictions (Cole, 2015;Ostrom, 2010); and mutual adjustment (Galaz, Crona, Österblom, Olsson, & Folke, 2012;Koontz, Gupta, Mudliar, & Ranjan, 2015).”

    From Collective action in a polycentric water governance system (2018) · cites this paper as Ostrom, 2010

  • Overlapping authority in polycentric systems allows decision centers to take account of each other through cooperation, competition and conflict resolution.

    “The overlapping authority in polycentric systems allows decision centers to take account of each other through cooperation, competition and conflict resolution (Ostrom, 2010).”

    From Collective action in a polycentric water governance system (2018) · cites this paper as Ostrom, 2010

  • Institutional variety, along with nested layers of organization, is a fundamental principle of polyarchy as described by Ostrom (2010).

    “Institutional variety, along with nested layers of organization, is a fundamental principle of polyarchy as described by Ostrom (2010).”
  • Institutional variety, along with nested layers of organization, is a fundamental principle of polyarchy as described by Ostrom (2010).

    “Institutional variety, along with nested layers of organization, is a fundamental principle of polyarchy as described by Ostrom (2010).”
  • Solving climate change requires action at multiple nested levels, and involving multiple stakeholders responding to local conditions.

    “Additionally, solving climate change requires action at multiple nested levels, and involving multiple stakeholders responding to local conditions (21).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ostrom, E.
Venue
Global Environmental Change
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-10
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
550-557
ISSN
0959-3780 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2130387153
Cited by
2,460
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 336 · 2025: 221 · 2024: 143 · 2023: 204 · 2022: 176 · 2021: 192 · 2020: 197 · 2019: 188 · 2018: 175 · 2017: 147 · 2016: 107 · 2015: 106 · 2014: 99 · 2013: 86 · 2012: 47
FWCI
126.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Global Environmental Change (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
  • World Bank Group
  • European Commission
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › International Environmental Law and Policies
Keywords
polycentric governance, collective action, climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, multi-level governance, policy experimentation, experiential learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review