Tragedy of the Commons Study Notes
Systems Archetypes: “Tragedy of the Commons”
Themes
A number of users take advantage of a shared resource. As the quality of the resource
deteriorates or as it becomes more scarce, the users intensify their use. Eventually the resource
is depleted.
Generic Story
A number of individuals or groups makes use of a common resource. In the beginning, the
resource seems to be abundant or unlimited. Users separately take advantage of the resource
as if they were the sole owners or beneficiaries. They do not take into account use by other
users. No one is aware of, gives any thought to or considers the relevance of limits to the
resource.
After a while, less of the resource is available, or the resource is less accessible, or its quality
diminishes. Users intensify their efforts to get enough of the resource, to get it when they need it,
and to get the quality they need.
If there is no intervention, no advocate for the common resource, and no adequate warning of the
limits, the resource disappears completely, becomes entirely inaccessible, or is degraded to the
point of uselessness.
Note: Garrett Harding, an economist, coined the name “tragedy of the commons” to describe the
failure of market economics to manage “common goods” in the interest of the larger community.
Patterns of Behavior over Time
There are three trend lines in the graph.
1. Total use of the resource by all users rises, sometimes exponentially. In the full lifecycle
of the resource, the total use line may finally drop to zero.
2. Quantity or quality of the resource is level for a while, then drops off, sometimes
exponentially, and may go to zero.
3. Gain from, benefit from or satisfaction with use of the resource either rises or is stable at
a high level for a while, then begins to drop off and may finally plummet to zero.
© 2008 Innovation Associates and Heaven & Earth Incorporated
Contact Sherry Immediato for more information: [email protected]
1
Tragedy of the Commons Study Notes
Generic Feedback Loop Diagram
”Tragedy of the Commons”
The first part of the diagram is made up of the reinforcing loops (R1) that represent the activities
of individual users. They use the resource, receive a benefit, and are motivated to continue using
it. For the sake of simplicity, a typical “Tragedy of the Commons” diagram contains only two of
these reinforcing loops no matter how many players actually exist.
Each individual user’s R loop links to a constraining balancing loop (B2). The constraining
variable is the actual limit of the resource – amount, access or quality – whether anyone in the
system is aware of it or not. This structure is a “limits to success” for each user.
For some period of time, the R loops predominate, and the limit is not triggered. No one is aware
of the balancing process.
When the balancing processes are activated because the limit has been triggered, users are
often surprised. They still do not consider the possibility of a limit, they just put more effort into
their activities in the reinforcing loops.
When the gain per activity decreases consistently, each party will be motivated to increase
activity to maintain their overall gains per time period (R3).
In fact, the more that users push their individual exploitation of the resource, the more the
balancing dynamic (B2) picks up momentum and the sooner the collapse arrives.
© 2008 Innovation Associates and Heaven & Earth Incorporated
Contact Sherry Immediato for more information: [email protected]
2
Tragedy of the Commons Study Notes
Typical Mental Models
”Tragedy of the Commons”
Typical mental models driving the decision to maintain or increase activity include:
•
This resource is here for my benefit, and I can use as much as I need. (It’s overhead and
I’ve already paid for it.)
•
There’s bound to be enough for everybody. Someone will let me know if I need to worry
about how much I use of this resource.
•
I’m just one user. My activities don’t make any difference.
•
Someone else is in charge of this resource.
•
If I just use a bit more (work a bit harder, work longer), I’ll get the same benefit I used to
get.
•
I need to substantially increase my activity just to stay even.
•
It doesn’t change anything if I’m the only one who conserves.
•
It’s not fair that I can’t get what I used to get from that resource.
Implications & Leverage Points
”Tragedy of the Commons”
Implications
In some cultures, no one feels responsible for what they do not own. Common resources are not
seen as “belonging” to anyone, or they belong to everyone.
People tend not to take the bigger picture or the longer term into account.
Without information about the limit to a common resource, the activities of other users, and the
ongoing impact of all users’ activities on the common resource, it is impossible for anyone to act
responsibly, either individually or collectively.
Decline of the resource cannot be turned around as long as even one user ignores the whole
picture.
Decline of the resource cannot be prevented or turned around by the efforts of only one individual
user or a few of the users. Prevention or recovery requires the collaboration of all the users.
Acknowledgement of the existence of and responsibility for a shared resource usually requires
strong community bonds or visionary leadership.
Management of a shared resource for long-term mutual benefit requires cooperation, discipline,
commitment, stamina and longevity.
© 2008 Innovation Associates and Heaven & Earth Incorporated
Contact Sherry Immediato for more information: [email protected]
3
Tragedy of the Commons Study Notes
Generic Leverage Points
To manage or change the “Tragedy of the Commons” dynamic:
1. Provide information about the limits and the use of the common resource.
2. Make people aware of the collective costs of individual actions.
3. Create a collective means of managing the resource. Create a sense of shared ownership or
institute official regulation. Fund administrative costs with a share of benefits accruing to the
individuals.
4. If the resource is close to depletion, it may be necessary to close off access to allow for
replenishment or regeneration.
5. Focus on the greater common good or vision.
6. Challenge mental models about entitlement to unlimited access to the resource. What are
reasonable goals for individual gain?
© 2008 Innovation Associates and Heaven & Earth Incorporated
Contact Sherry Immediato for more information: [email protected]
4
Tragedy of the Commons Study Notes
Guidelines: Draw Your Own
”Tragedy of the Commons”
Instructions: Choose a situation in your own experience that appears to be a case of “Tragedy
of the Commons.” Note key events in the story; graph key variables, then draw the loops.
Use the generic diagram to guide you, remembering that your diagram may have more variables,
more links or an external variable.
1. To get started, describe the success or GAINS measure for each party.
2. Finish the engine of growth. What ACTIVITY fuels continued performance over time?
3. Include your own MENTAL MODELS, beliefs and assumptions about the thinking and feeling
driving the growing action. If you are not the decision maker, you may need to speculate
about the mental models held by others. It might be helpful to note alternatives and see if
these are consistent with the story.
4. Sum up activities as TOTAL ACTIVITIES leading to GAIN PER ACTIVITY.
5. Note the LIMITS affecting GAIN PER ACTIVITY.
6. Consider what happens in a down turn. When GAIN PER ACTIVITY goes down, how is
ACTIVITY affected?
© 2008 Innovation Associates and Heaven & Earth Incorporated
Contact Sherry Immediato for more information: [email protected]
5
Tragedy of the Commons Study Notes
7. Check for DELAYS and show them in the diagram. These are usually before the gain per
activity. There may also be a delay in recognizing changes to gain per activity.
8. Note possible LEVERAGE POINTS and intervention strategies to reduce or eliminate the
“limit.”
Check your diagram with your original story.
•
Does your diagram explain that story? If not, what changed? Sometimes the process of
diagramming sheds new light on a story, and the story changes. Sometimes, though, in the
process of diagramming, it is tempting for force fit connections that are not true to real life.
•
If you ended up forcing a connection, go back and ask yourself why you think this story is a
“Tragedy of the Commons.” Does it fit the theme? Does it fit the pattern over time of a
situation where a seemingly endless resource now is depleted to the point that performance
suffers?
•
If it does, then review the variables and review your cause and effect links. You may find you
don’t actually have all the information. In that case, you can create a theory about what
happened.
•
If your case does not fit the theme and the behavior over time graph, go back to the
Archetype Family Tree and try another archetype as a template. Remember that you can
always begin by identifying reinforcing or balancing feedback in a story and draw the loops as
you hear them. An archetype may then emerge from your diagram.
© 2008 Innovation Associates and Heaven & Earth Incorporated
Contact Sherry Immediato for more information: [email protected]
6