The DOI matches its Crossref record; 122 of the 122 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis
Abstract
SUMMARY: Disturbances to key aspects of ecological systems, including biodiversity loss, climate change, pollution and natural resource degradation, have become a major concern to many policy analysts. Instead of learning from the study of biological complexity however, social scientists tend to recommend simple panaceas, particularly government or private ownership, as ‘the’ way to solve these problems. This paper reviews and assesses potential solutions for such overly simplified institutional prescriptions, referred to here as the ‘panacea problem’. In contrast to these simple prescriptions, recent research efforts are now illustrating the diversity of institutions around the world related to environmental conservation. The complexity of working institutions, however, presents a challenge to scholars who equate scientific knowledge with relatively simple models that predict optimal performance if specific institutional arrangements are in place. Dealing with this complexity has led to the development of frameworks as meta-theoretical tools. The institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework has been used over the last three decades as a foundation for a focused analysis of how institutions affect human incentives, actions and outcomes. Building on this foundation, the social-ecological systems (SES) framework has recently enabled researchers to begin the development of a common language that crosses social and ecological disciplines to analyse how interactions among a variety of factors affect outcomes. Such a framework may be able to facilitate a diagnostic approach that will help future analysts overcome the panacea problem. Using a common framework to diagnose the source, and possible amelioration, of poor outcomes for ecological and human systems enables a much finer understanding of these complex systems than has so far been obtained, and provides a basis for comparisons among many systems and ultimately more responsible policy prescriptions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hardin, G. (1968) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243 · Cited by 25,167
Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action
Ostrom, E. (1990) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511807763 · Cited by 20,653
Self-citationGoverning the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action
Field, B. C., & Ostrom, E. (1992) · Land Economics · doi:10.2307/3146384 · Cited by 18,859
Self-citation(2019) · AEA Papers and Proceedings · doi:10.1257/pandp.109.612 · Cited by 10,902
(2005) · Cited by 9,479
A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems
Ostrom, E. (2009) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1172133 · Cited by 8,656
Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed
Fukuyama, F., & Scott, J. C. (1998) · Foreign Affairs · doi:10.2307/20048980 · Cited by 8,396
The Problem of Pattern and Scale in Ecology: The Robert H. MacArthur Award Lecture
Levin, S. A. (1992) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1941447 · Cited by 6,792
The Use of Knowledge in Society
HAYEK, F. (1996) · Knowledge Management and Organisational Design · doi:10.1016/b978-0-7506-9749-1.50005-3 · Cited by 6,434
Hardin, G. (2009) · Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research · doi:10.1080/19390450903037302 · Cited by 6,367
Cited by
Comanagement of coral reef social-ecological systems
Cinner, J. E., McClanahan, T. R., MacNeil, M. A., Graham, N. A. J., Daw, T. M., Mukminin, A., Feary, D. A., Rabearisoa, A. L., Wamukota, A., Jiddawi, N., et al. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1121215109 · Cited by 555
Operationalizing the social-ecological systems framework to assess sustainability
Leslie, H. M., Basurto, X., Nenadovic, M., Sievanen, L., Cavanaugh, K. C., Cota-Nieto, J. J., Erisman, B. E., Finkbeiner, E., Hinojosa-Arango, G., Moreno-Báez, M., et al. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1414640112 · Cited by 375
Luederitz, C., Schäpke, N., Wiek, A., Lang, D. J., Bergmann, M., Bos, J. J., Burch, S., Davies, A., Evans, J., König, A., et al. (2017) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.005 · Cited by 367
Hill, R., Grant, C., George, M., Robinson, C. J., Jackson, S., & Abel, N. (2012) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-04587-170123 · Cited by 262
Understanding protected area resilience: a multi‐scale, social‐ecological approach
Cumming, G. S., Allen, C. R., Ban, N. C., Biggs, D., Biggs, H. C., Cumming, D. H. M., De Vos, A., Epstein, G., Etienne, M., Maciejewski, K., et al. (2015) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/13-2113.1 · Cited by 257
Metadata
- Authors
- OSTROM, E., & COX, M.
- Venue
- Environmental Conservation
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2010-11-25
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 451-463
- ISSN
- 0376-8929 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-4387
- OpenAlex
- W2057348226
- Cited by
- 632
- References
- 122
- FWCI
- 17.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0376892910000834
- The paper
- OSTROM, E., & COX, M. (2010). Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis. Environmental Conservation. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0376892910000834
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.