CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,728Sustainability and Climate Change GovernanceLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesCoastal and Marine Management

A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas

Open access
Ostrom, Elinor·2007·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.0702288104PMC PMC2000497
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The articles in this special feature challenge the presumption that scholars can make simple, predictive models of social–ecological systems (SESs) and deduce universal solutions, panaceas, to problems of overuse or destruction of resources. Moving beyond panaceas to develop cumulative capacities to diagnose the problems and potentialities of linked SESs requires serious study of complex, multivariable, nonlinear, cross-scale, and changing systems. Many variables have been identified by researchers as affecting the patterns of interactions and outcomes observed in empirical studies of SESs. A step toward developing a diagnostic method is taken by organizing these variables in a nested, multitier framework. The framework enables scholars to organize analyses of how attributes of ( i ) a resource system (e.g., fishery, lake, grazing area), ( ii ) the resource units generated by that system (e.g., fish, water, fodder), ( iii ) the users of that system, and ( iv ) the governance system jointly affect and are indirectly affected by interactions and resulting outcomes achieved at a particular time and place. The framework also enables us to organize how these attributes may affect and be affected by larger socioeconomic, political, and ecological settings in which they are embedded, as well as smaller ones. The framework is intended to be a step toward building a strong interdisciplinary science of complex, multilevel systems that will enable future diagnosticians to match governance arrangements to specific problems embedded in a social–ecological context.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0702288104

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Typically, CHANS are difficult to study because of their non-linearity characteristics, multiple space-time scales, complex feedback mechanisms, and unique local contexts that are linked to forces of globalization.

    “Typically, CHANS are difficult to study because of their non-linearity characteristics, multiple space-time scales, complex feedback mechanisms, and unique local contexts that are linked to forces of globalization.”

    From Modelling Tourism in the Galapagos Islands: An Agent-Based Model Approach (2014) · cites this paper as Ostrom 2007

    The passage headed “A Nested Framework for Analyzing Interactions and Outcomes of Linked SESs” (indexed as Abstract; no page supplied) describes social–ecological systems as nonlinear, cross-scale, changing, and difficult to analyze. Other supplied passages discuss feedback and the importance of particular settings. Our copy does not establish the claim that unique local contexts are linked to forces of globalization. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The collection and evaluation of evidence in the approach is organized according to modes of accumulation identified by the CEQ, including nonlinear and cross-boundary effects of widely recognized importance in complex social-ecological systems like the salmon fisheries of the Pacific Northwest.

    “The collection and evaluation of evidence in our approach is organized according to modes of accumulation identified by the CEQ (1997), including those such as nonlinear and cross-boundary effects that are of widely recognized importance in complex social-ecological systems like the salmon fisheries of the Pacific Northwest (Ostrom 2007).”

    From Evidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration (2016) · cites this paper as Ostrom 2007

    The section headed “A Nested Framework for Analyzing Interactions and Outcomes of Linked SESs” describes social–ecological systems as nonlinear and cross-scale, supporting the general point attributed to Ostrom. The cited paper does not establish that these effects are important specifically in Pacific Northwest salmon fisheries; its fishery examples concern other settings. The sentence attributes the modes of accumulation to the CEQ, not to Ostrom. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The concept of near decomposability has been extended to the analysis of natural resource systems, which are typically conceived as having multiple levels of subsystems that function independently in many respects but are also functionally linked with higher-level and lower-level subsystems within the larger natural resource system.

    “The concept of near decomposability has been extended to the analysis of natural resource systems, which are typically conceived as having multiple levels of subsystems that function independently in many respects but are also functionally linked with higher-level and lower-level subsystems within the larger natural resource system (see E. Ostrom, 2007).”

    From Polycentric Systems of Governance: A Theoretical Model for the Commons (2019) · cites this paper as E. Ostrom, 2007

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 74

  1. [1]Korten DM. Public Adm Rev. 1980;40:480–511. [Google Scholar]
  2. [2]Walters CJ. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. New York: Macmillan; 1986. [Google Scholar]
  3. [3]Walters CJ. Conserv Ecol. 1997;1(2):1. [Google Scholar]
  4. [4]Gunderson LH, Holling CS. Panarchy. Washington, DC: Island; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  5. [5]Holling CS. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. London: Wiley; 1978. [Google Scholar]
  6. [6]Janssen MA. Complexity and Ecosystem Management. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  7. [7]Epstein R. Simple Rules for a Complex World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ Press; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  8. [8]Clark WC, Kates RW, McGowan AH, Riordan TO. Environment. 2005;47:i. [Google Scholar]
  9. [10]Berkes F, Folke C, editors. Linking Social and Ecological Systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ Press; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  10. [11]Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C, editors. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ Press; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  11. [12]Carpenter SR, Brock WA. Ecol Soc. 2003;84:493–502. [Google Scholar]
  12. [13]Dasgupta P, Mäler K-G. In: Handbook of Development Economics. Behrman J, Srinavasan TN, editors. Vol 3. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1995. pp. 2371–2463. [Google Scholar]
  13. [14]Lee KN. Compass and Gyroscope. Washington, DC: Island; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  14. [15]Levin S. Ecosystems. 1995;1:431–436. [Google Scholar]
  15. [16]Levin S. Fragile Dominion. Reading, MA: Perseus; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  16. [17]National Research Council. The Drama of the Commons. Washington, DC: Committee on Human Dimensions of Global Change, Natl Acad Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  17. [18]Axelrod R, Cohen MD. Harnessing Complexity. Reprint Ed. New York: Basic Books; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  18. [20]Holling CS, Berkes F, Folke C. In: Linking Social and Ecological Systems. Berkes F, Folke C, editors. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ Press; 1998. pp. 342–362. [Google Scholar]
  19. [21]Page S. The Difference. Princeton: Princeton Univ Press; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  20. [22]Young O. In: Institutions and Environmental Change: Principal Findings, Applications, and Future Directions. Young OR, King LA, Schroeder H, editors. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2008. in press. [Google Scholar]
  21. [23]Carpenter SR, Brock WA. Ecol Soc. 2004;9(1):8. [Google Scholar]
  22. [24]Carpenter SR, Gunderson LH. BioScience. 2001;51:451–457. [Google Scholar]
  23. [25]Agrawal A. World Dev. 2001;29:1649–1672. [Google Scholar]
  24. [26]Allen TFH, Hoekstra TW. Toward a Unified Ecology. New York: Columbia Univ Press; 1992. [Google Scholar]
  25. [27]Ahl V, Allen TFH. Hierarchy Theory. New York: Columbia Univ Press; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  26. [28]Koestler A. In: Unity Through Diversity. Gray W, Rizzo ND, editors. New York: Gordon and Breach; 1973. pp. 287–314. [Google Scholar]
  27. [29]Wilson JA. In: The Drama of the Commons. Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, National Research Council, editor. Washington, DC: Natl Acad Press; 2002. pp. 327–359. [Google Scholar]
  28. [30]Simon H. PS Polit Sci Polit. 2000;33:749–756. [Google Scholar]
  29. [31]Holland JH. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1992. [Google Scholar]
  30. [32]Ostrom E. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton: Princeton Univ Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  31. [33]Anderies JM, Janssen MA, Ostrom E. Ecol Soc. 2004;9(1):18. [Google Scholar]
  32. [36]Netting RMcC. Hum Ecol. 1976;4:135–146. [Google Scholar]
  33. [37]Netting RMcC. Balancing on an Alp. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ Press; 1981. [Google Scholar]
  34. [38]Low B, Ostrom E, Simon C, Wilson J. In: Navigating Social-Ecological Systems. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C, editors. New York: Cambridge Univ Press; 2003. pp. 83–114. [Google Scholar]
  35. [39]Schlager E, Blomquist W, Tang SY. Land Econ. 1994;70:294–317. [Google Scholar]
  36. [40]Poteete A, Ostrom E. Dev Change. 2004;35:435–461. [Google Scholar]
  37. [41]Poteete A, Ostrom E. Agric Syst. 2004;82:215–232. [Google Scholar]
  38. [42]Mitchell RB, Clark WC, Cash D, Dickson N. Global Environmental Assessments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  39. [43]Moran EF. People and Nature. Oxford: Blackwell; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  40. [44]National Research Council. Decision Making for the Environment. Washington, DC: Natl Acad Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  41. [45]Ostrom E. Annu Rev Polit Sci. 1999;2:493–535. [Google Scholar]
  42. [46]Josse C, Navarro G, Comer P, Evans R, Faber-Langendoen D, Fellows M, Kittel G, Menard S, Pyne M, Reid M, et al. Ecological Systems of Latin America and the Caribbean. Arlington, VA: NatureServe; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  43. [47]Cash DW, Adger WN, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, Olsson P, Pritchard L, Young O. Ecol Soc. 2006;11(2):8. [Google Scholar]
  44. [49]Tucker CM, Randolph JC, Castellanos EJ. Hum Ecol. 2007;35:259–274. [Google Scholar]
  45. [50]Hardin G. Science. 1968;162:1243–1248. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. [51]Cardenas J-C, Ostrom E. Agric Syst. 2004;82:307–326. [Google Scholar]
  47. [52]Cardenas J-C, Stranlund J, Willis C. World Dev. 2000;28:1719–1733. [Google Scholar]
  48. [53]Casari M, Plott CR. J Econ Behav Organ. 2003;51:217–247. [Google Scholar]
  49. [56]Olson M. Power and Prosperity. New York: Basic Books; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  50. [57]Basurto X. Soc Nat Resour. 2005;18:643–659. [Google Scholar]
  51. [58]Kim K. Korean Soc Public Adm. 2006;8:239. [Google Scholar]
  52. [59]Meinzen-Dick R, Raju KV, Gulati A. World Dev. 2002;30:649–666. [Google Scholar]
  53. [61]Wilson JA, Low B, Costanza R, Ostrom E. Ecol Econ. 1999;31:243–257. [Google Scholar]
  54. [62]Young O. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  55. [63]Young O, Berkhout F, Gallopin GC, Janssen MA, Ostrom E, van der Leeuw S. Global Environ Change. 2006;16:304–316. [Google Scholar]
  56. [64]Acheson J. Capturing the Commons. Lebanon, NH: Univ Press of New England; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  57. [65]Acheson JM, Wilson JA, Steneck RS. Linking Social and Ecological Systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ Press; 1998. pp. 390–413. [Google Scholar]
  58. [66]Wilson J, Acheson JM, Metcalfe M, Kleban P. Mar Policy. 1994;18:291–305. [Google Scholar]
  59. [69]Axelrod R. The Complexity of Cooperation. Princeton: Princeton Univ Press; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  60. [70]Ostrom E. Am Polit Sci Rev. 1998;92:1–22. [Google Scholar]
  61. [72]Huitric M. Ecol Soc. 2005;10(1):21. [Google Scholar]
  62. [74]Pagdee A, Kim Y-S, Daugherty PJ. Soc Natur Resour. 2006;19:33–52. [Google Scholar]
  63. [75]Tang SY. In: Rules, Games, & Common-Pool Resources. Ostrom E, Gardner R, Walker J, editors. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ of Michigan Press; 1994. pp. 225–246. [Google Scholar]
  64. [76]Schlager E. In: Rules, Games, & Common-Pool Resources. Ostrom E, Gardner R, Walker J, editors. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ of Michigan Press; 1994. pp. 247–266. [Google Scholar]
  65. [77]Poteete AR, Ostrom E. World Dev. 2008 in press. [Google Scholar]
  66. [78]McConnell WJ, Keys E. In: Seeing the Forest and the Trees. Moran EF, Ostrom E, editors. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2005. pp. 325–354. [Google Scholar]
  67. [80]Agrawal A, Redford K. Poverty, Development and Biodiversity Conservation, Wildlife Conservation Society Working Paper No 26. New York: Wildlife Conservation Society; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  68. [81]Axelrod R. In: Handbook of Computational Economics: Agent-Based Computational Economics. Tesfatsion L, Judd KL, editors. Vol 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2006. pp. 1565–1584. [Google Scholar]
  69. [82]Janssen MA, Ostrom E. In: Handbook of Computational Economics: Agent-Based Computational Economics. Tesfatsion L, Judd KL, editors. Vol 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2006. pp. 1465–1509. [Google Scholar]
  70. [83]Brondízio E, Moran EF, Mausel P, Wu Y. Photogr Eng Remote Sensing. 1996;62:921–929. [Google Scholar]
  71. [84]Moran EF, Ostrom E, editors. Seeing the Forest and the Trees. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  72. [85]Ragin C. The Comparative Method. Berkeley: Univ of California Press; 1987. [Google Scholar]
  73. [86]Ragin C. Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago: Univ of Chicago Press; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  74. [87]Rudel TK. Tropical Forests. New York: Columbia Univ Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ostrom, E.
Affiliations
Center for the Study of Institutions, Population, and Environmental Change, Indiana University, 408 North Indiana Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47408; Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, 513 North Park, Bloomington, IN 47408; and Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-2402
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2007-09-25
Volume
104
Issue
39
Pages
15181-15187
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.0702288104
PMC
PMC2000497
OpenAlex
W2071962320
Cited by
2,728
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 109 · 2025: 124 · 2024: 129 · 2023: 146 · 2022: 167 · 2021: 209 · 2020: 196 · 2019: 158 · 2018: 197 · 2017: 156 · 2016: 163 · 2015: 168 · 2014: 168 · 2013: 165 · 2012: 135
FWCI
60.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VTechWorks (Virginia Tech) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Ford Foundation
  • John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Coastal and Marine Management
Keywords
social-ecological systems, panacea, diagnostic framework, multilevel systems, governance arrangements, resource utilization (natural resources), nonlinear interactions, cross-scale analysis, resource degradation, interdisciplinary research, fisheries, lake ecosystems, grazing systems
MeSH terms
Animals, Conservation of Natural Resources, Ecology, Environment, Environmental Health, Environmental Monitoring, Environmental Pollution, Humans, Models, Biological, Public Policy, Social Environment, Ecosystem

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