Fleischman, Forrest

This year approaches the 20th anniversary of the publication of Ostrom’s Social Ecological Systems framework, Initially published in 2007 in PNAS as a “diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas.” In its various forms, this framework has been cited more than 10,000 times. Yet the framework has failed to foster the kinds of diagnosis Ostrom and her colleagues dreamed of in 2007. In this paper I argue that this is because the framework Ostrom proposed, and the research programs it engendered failed to engage with the middle-range causal theory which is the heart of effective diagnosis. Diagnosis can be defined as the process of identifying the cause a phenomena, and thus places causality at its center. In the context of social-ecological systems, which are inherently complex, identifying causality requires focusing on narrow ranges of contextual conditions in particular circumstances, much as diagnosis in medicine requires detailed understanding of particular organ systems and pathogens. The generality of Ostrom’s framework distracts users from this focus on causal interactions in context, while aiming for a level of generality that simply does not exist in the diverse nature of social ecological interactions. In its place, I suggest that commons researchers return to a focus on identifying the causes of particular desirable and undesirable social and ecological outcomes, drawing on tools for analyzing actors, institutions, incentives, and power relations, many of which were pioneered by Ostrom, and build generalizations from the bottom up, by identifying social ecological conditions with shared sets of causal relationships.

Ecological restoration has emerged as a global priority in the last decade, reshaping commons around the globe. Yet many landscapes have long histories of restoration or similar activities, which are poorly documented. Understanding these histories can provide key lessons for the design of effective restoration programs. In this paper I examine the history of government-led tree planting programs in the western himalayas of Himachal Pradesh, India. Drawing on government records, including working plans, project planning documents, and annual reports, I show that tree planting programs have been conceptualized to meet a wide variety of public needs, ranging from the provision of fuelwood and timber to the restoration of ecosystem integrity. The rhetoric of these activities have changed over the decades in response to the whims of funding organizations and shifting conceptualizations of the role of the state in fostering well-being in the western Himalaya. I also document a shift away from programs aimed primarily at industrial output, and towards supporting the livelihoods of the rural poor, a shift which may be correlated with growing local democracy at the local level and/or declining direct dependence of the population on natural resources. I conclude with a call for greater historical research into the ways that landscapes and government programs have been jointly reshaped through restoration programs.