Orstom’s Social-Ecological model
Orstom’s model for mammals Côte-Nord
region of Quebec (caribou, wolf, moose)
Orstom’s model for whale-watching
activities in the Saint Lawrence Estuar
Orstom’s model for Eyre Peninsula in
South Australia
Orstom’s Social-Ecological System
model
Orstom’s Social-Ecological model
Orstom’s Social-Ecological model
Orstom’s Social-Ecological model
applied to Hardin’s “Tragedy”
1) No governance system related to the resource system
(GS1-8 absent)
2) No human investments to productivity resource system
(RS4 absent)
3) Mobile individual resource units (RU1) are private property
of individuals (eg branding: RU6a)
4) Sufficient number of users (large U1) to damage long-term
productivity
5) The resource users make decisions in absence of shared
norms or communication (no U5 or U6)
Orstom’s Social-Ecological model applied to “Roving
Bandits” tragedy
(1) no governance system is present (no GS);
(2) no human investments to improve the productivity of the
resource system (the ocean) (no RS4);
(3) the mobile resource units (RU1; the fish captured by a
fishing boat) become the private property
(4) a sufficient number of fishing boats to destroy that local
stock (large U1);
(5) the individual owners of fishing vessels make decisions
independently without any local organization or established
norms (no U5 or U6).
Orstom’s Social-Ecological model applied to
Lobster Common Pool Resources (CPR)
1)
2)
3)
4)
lived in shoreline communities for many generations (U3),
2) have deep roots in their communities (U4)
local communication forum (U5)
Developed norms of trustworthiness and reciprocity with
those with whom they have close interactions (U6)
5) Gained effective knowledge about the resource system
and resource units they are using (U7)