Dear William

thank you so much

Garret Hardin, when he coined the phrase 'Tragedy of the Commons', proposed two ways to avoid the tragedy: (1) assign ownership of the resource system (e.g., aquifer) to the state (as state or government property); or (2) divide the resource system into parcels (e.g., as volumetric extraction entitlements) as assign them to individuals (as private or individual property). The latter has been favoured by many economists due to its consistency with a market-based approach to resource management. Elinor Ostrom, in her famous 1990 book 'Governing the Commons', challenged Hardin's analysis and suggested that a third option was also possible: allocating ownership of the resource system to a defined group of 'commoners' (i.e., as common property). Identification of this possibility led to widespread (indiscriminate) international investment in community-based approaches to natural resource management. Lin Ostrom emphasised that all three approaches (government-based, market-based and community-based) should be looked at carefully for each particular situation, with the best solution often involving a 'polycentric' blend of the three approaches, where each approach covers for the wekenesses of the others. I tried to summarise these ideas as simply as possible in my 2005 book 'Economics for Collaborative Environmental Management: Renegotiating the Commons'.

Dear Graham

thank you so much

What factors and indicators to measure these three approaches(government-based, market-based and community-based) should be used in society

That is a big question Aliakbar. Many factors (eg, financial capacities, social capital, human capital, biophysical attributes of the commons, etc) are relevant to deciding how to design governance systems - normally involving elements from each of the market, community and government approaches - that are capable in practice of avoiding tragedies of the commons. Elinor Ostrom advocated the need to a diagnostic approach to designing governance arrangements to solve commons tragedies. Relevant publications are:

Ostrom, E. 2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (39):15181-15187.

———. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325:419-422.

Another relevant reference is:

Young, O.R. 2002. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Thanks to Aliakbar and to Garret for contributing to this discussion.  I'm in the process of analyzing whether a new approach can be taken to governing offshore freshwater resources, which have been found under continental shelves but have not yet begun to be developed.  As the world approaches increasing water instability due to destructive and wasteful practices that are widely accepted as business as usual, it seems that new ways of governing a critical resource are necessary.  Ostrom's seminal book is on my list for the next trip to the library.  Unfortunately, in the current era market forces are trusted more than any other, even though they often lead to scarcity.

I forgot to mention that Ostrom's Governing the Commons book presents eight design principles for crafting robust solutions to commons problems. These principles have since been elaborated by others.

dear Graham

Thank you very very much.

Here are the 8 principles.

1. Define clear group boundaries.

2. Match rules governing use of common goods to local needs and conditions.

3. Ensure that those affected by the rules can participate in modifying the rules.

4. Make sure the rule-making rights of community members are respected by outside authorities.

5. Develop a system, carried out by community members, for monitoring members’ behavior.

6. Use graduated sanctions for rule violators.

7. Provide accessible, low-cost means for dispute resolution. 

8. Build responsibility for governing the common resource in nested tiers from the lowest level up to the entire interconnected system.

Thank you all for the very nice discussion. I would like to add that the solution proposed by Ostrom had been practiced by traditional communities, quite often with success. History can teach us. Moreover, education, aiming at understanding and respecting the limits of our resources, is indispensable for long-term solutions.

Dear Aliakbar, please, do allow me to enter this nice discussion by adding that there are several issues that need to be placed in a clear perspective: i) usually the term aquifer is just not considered in its correct perspective, it is not the same "aquifer", than "the water" that is saturating the gelogical formation; many a times an aquifer (groundwater?) is considered just as a part of the land surface, ie, parcel; we should remember that groundwater does not acknowledge administrative boundaries; ii) much confussion has been created by using aquifer=water=groundwater=resource, having each a very specific meaning; iii) groundwater moves, slowly, but it travels in 3D in flow systems that are beyond the static aquifer concept and of course the parcel concept; it would not be uncommon to tfind that groundwatyer entering (recharge) in a parcel leaves (discharges) in a different one kms away... so unless these and many other concepts add to the discussion, the observed response in the field will not reach not to a proper statement from where any proposed solution will be more and more far away from the correct one ever... do get from Mexico saludos,jjoel carrillor

Dear Jose joel Carrillo

thank you so much

What action or the manner of governing (conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of a state, organization, or people) is needed, in other words what governance is required and whether the current governance is sufficient to overcome the tragedy of the commons and does one need  to create a governance with new concept to overcome the tragedy of the commons .

Dear Dr Alaikbar, my opinion is that as people struggle to find which is the best of the three options of suggested ownership (state, private or community) to apply, this makes them forget the main issue, the subject that is to be governed, in this case: water. Furthermore, the issue becomes more particular as “water” is hidden as groundwater... We should remember that more than 95% of the water available in the continents is groundwater (I guess in Iran is close to 99%). Then, its importance is concealed into a system of different words and concepts that have added to the confusion, making us forget that groundwater is the main component of a system called environment (groundwater is connected just with about every other component). However, in our case, the main focus is leaned on a handful of variables which do not allow finding the core of the environmental questions: the hydraulic balance; paradigm that in many regions lack the required data and their treatment. A basic question may be proposed: which of the governance possibilities proposed by Hardin or Ostrom may lead to success if there is a lack of knowledge on the functioning of the object of reference, in this case: groundwater?

Which might be the action to start with? I would suggest changing the paradigm regarding the model used: one which is static based on unrepeatable (and usually unmeasured) factors, which is applied to the parcel or state or community; and change it to a dynamic one that includes external and internal boundary conditions and biophysical processes, the groundwater flow systems.

Do get from Mexico saludos,jjoel carrillor

Assigning ownership, as discussed above, is only the first step - or maybe a concurrent step.  Along with ownership comes the responsibility of managing the resource wisely and fairly.  To do that one needs to know how much resource is being considered, what are the natural controls of that resource, and what are the cost/benefit ratios of the various potential management alternatives.

Dear Jose joel Carrillo and W Robert Talbot

thank you so much

Do conceptual or theoretical frameworks  enough for interaction of variables in the field of overcome on tragedy of the commons ? 

Dear Aliakbar, I wish to thank the comment by Dr Talbot which allows me, with due respect, to include a couple of ideas:

i).- There is a big issue in reaching to a solid understanding when a word is used to mean different and contrasting concepts (commodity = resource = water = groundwater). Note that, strictly, so far the concept in discussion is on groundwater, not on a merchandise or commodity which could so far be produced, groundwater cannot be produced. Perhaps water has to be firstly studied as water and then when in need be a commodity, but not a synonymous, the current dictionary does not include that definition…., yet…

ii).- To know how much water is there in an area is by far been demonstrated that the “how much” needs to be given several further considerations. As Dr Talbot suggests, the managing of groundwater needs to be carried wisely and fairly. This implies to go beyond the accounting of the water to be obtained and the cost/benefit ratio. It is necessarily to define how the different groundwater flows are functioning as to achieve the required managing alternatives. In Mexico, as in many other regions, the solely use of the groundwater accounting by the "water balance" to define how much groundwater is present as a base to define the "available" groundwater, has created severe environmental impacts as subsidence, disappearance of springs, mislead seawater intrusion, change in the pumped water quality; desiccation of lakes and wetlands, just to name a few....

For additional information: Carrillo–Rivera JJ, Cardona A, Huizar–Alvarez R & Graniel E. 2008. Response of the interaction between groundwater and other components of the environment in Mexico. Environmental Geology, Vol 2, 303-319. DOI: 10.1007/s00254-007-1005-2; ISSN: 0943-0105

Please allow me to contribute further to this interesting discussion.  One study that I am reading suggests that allowing the aquifer stakeholders -- the equivalent of river basin stakeholders -- to manage the resource themselves, without imposition of governmental regulations, may be the most effective method of avoiding the tragedy of the commons.  However, for that approach to be effective, the aquifer stakeholders must have adequate information and data about the aquifer, transparency of each other's actions, frequent communications to address changing circumstances and the ability to renegotiate withdrawal and use rights.

Renee Martin-Nagle, PhD Researcher, Un. of Strathclyde 

what  Paradigm (structuralist, Interpretive, critical) we Should have    to the tragedy of the commons?

  I would prefer structural paradigm. In case of water management there is no much discussion about human need for water. But local traditions that include using water in one way or another can be reinterpreted using other paradigms.

thank you so much

I think with regarding the complex attributes of tragedy of the commons  should be used of  combination of research paradigms 

Elinor Ostrom developed a Diagnostic Framework for Social-Ecological Systems that offers a meta-theoretical language to facilitate communication and learning between research paradigms in this area. See:

Cox, M. 2011. Advancing the diagnostic analysis of environmental problems. International Journal of the Commons Vol. 5 (2):346-363.

Marshall, G.R. 2015. A social-ecological systems framework for food systems research: Accommodating transformation systems and their products. International Journal of the Commons 9 (2):881-908.

Ostrom, E. 2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (39):15181-15187.

———. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325:419-422.

Dear Graham Roy Marshall

thank you so much (Is it possible to know your opinion (Mr Graham) about the following question)

Do you think can be used only of the governance factor regardless of other factors (direct and indirect effects)  in assessment of Tragedy of the Commons?

How big is share of of governance in Tragedy of the Commons?

Which type of governance in relation to the water (in agriculture) can be more effective, for example, participatory governance,collaborative governance and Etc. 

Please introduce a valid personal experiences and research resources

What factors should be considered in order to improve the governance of water resources, to sustainable governance of water resources?

In the field of agriculture

Which type of water governance (as a normative and analytical concept) is best suited for water resource governance in agriculture?

What framework do you offer for the analytical approach to water governance?

regarding  Water Resources in agriculture

for example

1- SESF (Social-Ecological System Framework)

2- MTF( Management and Transition Framework )

3- institutional natural resource regime framework

4- institutional analysis and development framework

5- contextual interaction theory