A Nested Property Right System of the Commons: Perspective of Resource System-Units
Environmental Science & Policy, ISSN: 1462-9011, Vol: 115, Page: 1-7
2021
- 16Citations
- 14Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
The common pool resource (CPR) theory has made invaluable contributions to the governance of natural resources in the past decades, but few literatures have specifically paid attention to the different property right arrangements of resource system and resource units, and their relationship. In this paper, we take two types of grassland property right system on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau (QTP) in China, one is grassland contract system under that the previous grassland common use was given up and the other is grazing quota system under that the common use is still kept in the community level, as cases to present the different consequences on the ecological conditions, herders’ livelihoods and livestock husbandry. Furthermore, from the perspective of property rights of resource system-units, we explore why the two systems resulted in the different consequences. We find that the grazing quota system indicated by the number of livestock each household allowed to raise has more advantages in improving the herders’ livelihoods and reducing the livestock production costs, and both systems could alleviate the grazing pressure though the long-term effects of the contract system might be negative on ecological conditions. The main reason why the grazing quota system works better is that this type of individual use rights were clarified based on the resource units so the grassland could be kept common use as an integrated resource system, while the contract system was claimed by physically dividing the resource system by fencing, thus the resource system was fragmented which led to mismatch with the large scope movement needs of livestock grazing. We argue that, theoretically, the grazing quota system is a private property rights embedded in the grassland common property right system, which forms a nested property right regime. Our findings have important implications for both of the CPR theory and practical rangeland management worldwide.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901120313587; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.10.009; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85093668312&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1462901120313587; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.10.009
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know