Sub-theme 1
Staying true to IASC roots: environmental commons in a changing world
Theme Details
Commons scholars, particularly those from the Bloomington School tradition, have a long and rich history of studying various environmental commons such as forests, fisheries, pasturelands, and irrigation systems. These environmental commons have been thoroughly documented and analyzed across diverse contexts, providing a solid foundation for empirical research and theorization on social and environmental governance. Recently, new types of environmental uses and commons have been identified and analyzed, including coral reefs, the atmosphere and the space beyond the atmosphere, the high seas and the deep seabed.
This theme invites submissions that focus on the management of both traditional environmental commons—forests, fisheries, and irrigation systems—and newer and larger-scale environmental commons. We welcome contributions that explore the use, management, distribution, and conservation of environmental commons across different contexts, as well as the interconnections among them. In keeping with the IASC’s foundational principles, a central focus of this sub-theme will be on the theory and practice of building local institutions for governing environmental commons in a changing world.
Program Committee sub-theme members: Praneeta Mudliar, Maria Claudia-Lopez
Panels
Panel 1.1.
In-person
Game Frontiers: from understanding collective action to supporting it
Chair: Thomas Falk
International Food Policy Research Institute
Abstract
A large number of studies have used behavioral games to study cooperation patterns of communities. An emerging body of literature explores the use of group dynamic games as an intervention tool to facilitate social learning and eventually individual or collective behavioral change related to the management of shared resources. Approaches cover role-playing games based on companion modeling, dynamic human-environment games, as well as games based on experiment designs used in behavioral economics.
Such games have been adapted as stakeholder engagement tools to strengthen self-regulation of resource use and enhance constructive interaction of resource users. They provide participants with useful metaphors for their daily lives. The participatory nature of experiential learning can support the emergence of institutions fitting to the respective context.
This panel will present recent studies on the use of games, including:
- Conceptual thinking on how games can support collective action
- Presentation of different game approaches supporting collective action
- Reflections on applications of experiential learning games at a large scale
- Evidence on effects of games on supporting collective action.
Panel 1.2.
In-person
Comprehensive and Lasting Solutions for 'Wicked Problems' in Commons Governance
co-Chairs: Prosper Tonderai Mataruse1 and Arthur Perrotton
1Department of Community and Social Development, University of Zimbabwe
Abstract
The degradation of the commons involves complex, interconnected issues, uncertainties, conflicting cultural values, and high stakes for stakeholders. Addressing these ‘wicked problems,’ such as deforestation and other forms of degradation, requires holistic and multi-layered approaches. While tackling visible consequences like habitat loss, biodiversity depletion, and carbon release is necessary, it only addresses the symptoms. Reactive measures, such as imposing sanctions and implementing reforestation programs, often overlook the underlying systemic structures and mental models that shape commons governance and management.
Beneath the surface lie submerged complexities involving intricate feedback loops, competing interests, and long-term environmental repercussions. This panel aims to delve deeper into these issues, exploring comprehensive and lasting solutions for addressing the continuous degradation of the commons. By understanding and addressing the root causes, we can develop more effective and sustainable strategies for commons governance.
Panel 1.3.
TBD
Water Governance Working Group Panel on Interdisciplinary Approaches to Exploring Water Governance and Irrigation
Chair: Lavanya Suresh
Birla Institute of Technology & Science, Pilani, Hyderabad Campus, India
Abstract
Water Governance had an important place in Elinor Ostrom’s research. This panel, organised by the Working Group in Water Governance at Ostrom Workshop, explores self-governing irrigation systems from a polycentric approach as well as taking other interdisciplinary approaches. This panel focuses on how collaboration is fostered and negotiation amongst various levels of governance – from individual users and communities, to non-governmental agencies and state institutions takes place. The panel includes broadly successful cases of self-governing water management as well as raises criticism where it has not achieved its objectives, paying particular attention to marginalised groups.
The panel explores how a polycentric approach can effectively address the challenges posed by a diverse and dynamic entity like water governance. Specifically in irrigation, resource self governance and participation has to navigate local cultures and traditions, power dynamics, and manage interdependencies amongst stakeholders. Together with other approaches, the panel aims to build a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between civic participation, environmental change, and irrigation systems. This panel builds on an existing body of literature that emphasizes the need for water governance systems in the context of current dynamic institutional and environmental change.
The evolving institutional change has resulted in shifts in policy priorities, changes in government structures, and the emergence of new actors and stakeholders. The panel recognizes the need to explore how these institutional dynamics influence the effectiveness of water governance and how they can be harnessed to address water-related challenges more efficiently.
Panel 1.4.
In-person
Potentials of commons for ecosystem services provision
Chair: Mateja Šmid Hribar
Research center of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Abstract
In recent years, ecosystem services have become a major research area, but mainstream researchers typically overlook the reality that many commons regimes governing natural resources provide provisioning, regulating and even cultural ecosystem services sometimes also called ‘Nature’s Contribution to People’ (e.g. Fisher et al. 2009; Barnaud et al. 2018; Šmid Hribar et al. 2023; Tucker et al. 2023). Such commons not only play a vital role in maintaining biodiversity but also enhance ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration and water regulation, fire protection, recreation and similar. Therefore, this panel will examine the intersections among territorial commons and ecosystem services, and explore diverse perspectives that highlight innovative solutions and deepen understanding of the nexus between commons and ecosystem service provision.
Panel 1.5
In-person
Challenges and Opportunities for Mountain Commons and Communities
Chair: Catherine Tucker
University of Florida
Abstract
Mountains are globally ubiquitous but locally unique, and present numerous examples of long-enduring common-pool resource regimes. A number of theoretical contributions to scholarship focus on mountain commons (pastures, forests, alpine meadows, irrigation systems, glaciers) and the resilient Indigenous and local communities that govern them. At the same time, mountains appear to be particularly vulnerable to rapid climate change, disaster risks, extractive mining operations, imposition of problematic policies, and tourism-related impacts on fragile social-ecological systems. This panel will examine how mountain communities and their allies are addressing challenges and finding opportunities to maintain and defend their commons. Given that mountains encompass diverse cultures, languages, rural and urban commons as well as highly variable landscapes and governance systems, the panel invites papers across the spectrum of theoretical frameworks, critical approaches, observations, and applied experiences of challenges and possibilities for mountain commons and their peoples. For example, cases might involve revitalizing traditional practices, undertaking transdisciplinary projects, experimenting with new practices, decolonizing institutional arrangements, challenging inequitable power relations, developing strategies to mitigate climate change and counteract inappropriate external interventions, as well as pursuing legal remedies and novel partnerships.
Panel 1.6.
In-person
Illicit Economies and The Commons
Chair: Maria Alejandra Velez
Universidad de los Andes
Abstract
Traditional environmental commons—forests, fisheries, and watersheds—in the Amazon Basin are being threatened by several legal and illicit (including criminal) economies. Neither has clearly respected frontier governance efforts. For example, 50% of coca crops for cocaine production in Colombia are in environmentally sensitive areas within strategic regimes to manage the commons, such as national parks, forest reserves, and collective ethnic territories. Within all of Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Guyana, Suriname, and Colombia, informal and illegal small-scale gold mining activities are the largest anthropogenic emitter of mercury into the atmosphere and watersheds. Yet coca crops and gold mining are, for many vulnerable communities, the only livelihood alternatives. Public interventions have systematically failed to address these situations. Securitization and ‘green militarization’ sometimes have worse environmental impacts than the activities they intend to contain. Moreover, at the margins of the State, the differences between informal, illicit, and criminal activities are blurred. Related literature suggests conceptual frameworks for broader, more complex views of the phenomena and experiences of those who are part of these value chains which affect the commons. Distinctions between illegal/criminal, non-violent illegal, gray, and informal markets must emerge to help explain the diversity and social heterogeneity present in these economies. How do these economies affect the commons? How can we design effective and efficient interventions within these frontier communities? This panel welcomes papers that address these topics in Latin America and beyond.
Panel 1.7.
In-person
Societal transformations and biodiversity: Understanding the interplay of institutional, interpersonal, and intrapersonal change
co-Chairs: Ilkhom Soliev1, Agnes Zolyomi1,2,3, and Alex Franklin3
1Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, 2Groningen University, 3Coventry University
Abstract
Social dimensions of biodiversity have so far received relatively little attention in research. Prioritising biodiversity while ensuring equitability is both challenging and mutually essential. Achieving this balance often involves societal transformations at institutional (e.g., policies, governance), interpersonal (e.g., norms, interactions), and intrapersonal (e.g., values, behaviours) levels (Meadows 1999; Ostrom 2011; Williamson 2000). For effectively addressing the direct and indirect causes of biodiversity loss, transformations are necessary at multiple levels (IPBES 2019; 2022). This panel will discuss contributions with tested and emerging forms of interventions for triggering transformations transcending these levels of change (potentially) leading to reinforced prioritisation of biodiversity across the board. We call for examples from research and practice focused on understanding how change can be facilitated at the interface of the State, communities, and individuals. We are especially keen to explore interventions in terms of their 1) success at considering the perspectives of both biodiversity on the one hand and power asymmetries and justice on the other hand; and 2) specific and situated (and ideally measurable) impact but also transferability to other contexts and places. Submissions with theoretical, methodological, and empirical focus, as well as those based on a review of existing evidence, are equally welcome.
Panel 1.8.
TBD
Commons aflame: Collective fire management
co-Chairs: Kate Schreckenberg1 and Abigail R. Croker2
1King's College London , 2currently at the Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London and, from Nov 2024, at the Centre for BioComplexity, Princeton University
Abstract
There is growing concern about wildfires and the way in which they endanger life and property and contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. In turn, climate change exacerbates the hot, dry and windy conditions in which fires can ignite and spread. Yet we need to distinguish clearly the conflagrations which dominate media headlines from small-scale livelihood-based fires and cultural burning. Indeed, policies aimed at suppressing all fires may inadvertently create the high fuel loads that can turn fires into unmanageable disasters. There is increasing recognition that traditional systems of burning may not just be good for sustaining livelihoods but also help to avoid dangerous wildfires.
In this panel we invite presentations relating to the use of fire to manage fire. This is a collective action problem where healthy and resilient landscapes result from decisions (more or less coordinated) taken by diverse land managers across space and over time. We welcome contributions examining fire policy and management at multiple scales from the local to the global, including those documenting the loss of traditional fire management systems and associated knowledge (e.g. as a result of government suppression of fires, or when changing socio-economic contexts no longer favour fire-based livelihoods) and/or examples of their restoration.
Panel 1.9.
In-person
Beyond tenure: Implications for forest-based livelihoods
co-Chairs: Divya Gupta1, Prateek Gautam2, and Priyanshu Gupta3
1Binghamton University, 2XIM University, India, I3ndian Institute of Management Lucknow, India
Abstract
This panel invites research on the implications of forest rights and tenure for livelihoods and well-being. We seek empirical studies that explore realities of how secure forest tenure shapes and reshapes forest-livelihood linkages.
We welcome papers addressing the following questions:
What theories and concepts help us understand the implications of forest tenure on livelihoods?
How do policies, political reforms, and institutions related to tenure influence forest-based livelihoods?
What are the differentiated impacts of secure forest tenure across various segments of the forest-dependent population?
We encourage contributions on the following themes, though submissions are not limited to these:
Experiences of secure tenure and its effects on forest-based livelihoods
Differentiated impacts of secure tenure on different population groups (gender, class, caste etc.)
Institutional changes or adaptations post-rights recognition
Effects of secure tenure on human well-being, power dynamics, and politics
Panel 1.10.
In-person
Common concerns. Environmental literacy among commoners in early modern Europe
Chair: Tine De Moor
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Abstract
In the late Middle Ages and early modern period, people throughout Europe organized themselves to manage certain parts of their environments collectively. In this session, we will combine insights from economic history, organizational studies and environmental history to explore to the commoners’ awareness that the resources they held collectively were limited and depletable, and how this is reflected in both the regulation of these institutions and the daily practice. How concerned were commoners with their natural environment? Did they take into account the limitations of their natural environment? Which tools did commoners develop to manage their commons sustainably? And how did they manage to enforce such rules? Furthermore, we will look into the effects of such management on the state of the resources held collectively in the long run. Insights from these studies are not only relevant for economic, organizational and environmental historians, but add to our understanding of present-day institutions for collective action that are currently being developed across Europe, that try to find answers to the sustainability challenges we are facing today.
Panel 1.11.
In-person
Adaptive ocean governance: novel approaches for navigating complex institutional and property rights arrangements
Ben Nagel1, Stefan Partelow2, and Achim Schlüter1
1Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT), Germany, 2University of Bonn, Germany
Abstract
Ocean governance needs to be adaptive to social-ecological changes. However, the complexity of existing institutional and property rights arrangements makes this challenging. Different types of rules, norms and property types (i.e., private, common, state) governed by a multitude of intertwined formal and informal regimes are often interacting in ways that can be either complementary or lead to conflict. These complex ocean governance seascapes are therefore difficult to understand through a single theoretical lens or framework. This panel brings together research which explores adaptive ocean governance processes from different methodological perspectives. We particularly invite contributions from scholars who investigate how these intertwined ocean governance arrangements, or actors embedded in them, adapt and respond in the face of change and uncertainty. In doing so, this panel aims to foster dialogue regarding, on the one hand, different processes of governance change happening in the marine realm around the world, and on the other hand, on different methodological approaches to investigate those processes of adaptive governance.
Panel 1. 12.
In-person
Innovative Approaches to Governance in Straits: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Managing Shared Resources
Youness Achmani
Université du Littoral Côte d'Opale
Abstract
This panel brings together leading researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to explore innovative and interdisciplinary approaches to governance and management of straits as critical shared resources. By addressing the complex challenges of straits governance—ranging from environmental sustainability and maritime and navigation security to economic development and international law—this panel seeks to advance both theoretical understanding and practical solutions. The discussions will draw on cutting-edge governance frameworks and case studies to assess the role of diverse stakeholders, including local actors, national governments, and international bodies, in managing these vital spaces. Through a multi-disciplinary lens, the panel will explore how collaborative, adaptive, and inclusive governance models can create sustainable solutions, enhance regional cooperation, and address pressing issues such as environmental degradation, climate change, and geopolitical tensions. This session offers a platform for dynamic exchanges and aims to foster a deeper understanding of straits governance, providing actionable insights for policymakers and practitioners alike.
Sub-theme 2
Climate Change, Resilience, and the Commons
Theme Details
Global climate change is arguably the most challenging collective action problem of our time, affecting everyone on the planet. It also involves complex dynamics that classic collective action theories struggle to capture, such as power imbalances and disparities in influence. Addressing climate change requires that we consider issues of mitigation, adaptation, and the long-term task of building resilient economies and societies amidst evolving climates and shifting social and technical systems.
In this subtheme, we invite scientists and practitioners to propose presentations on topics including, but not limited to: polycentric approaches to managing climatic commons, carbon markets and carbon offsets, nature-based climate solutions, people-centered and gender-inclusive strategies for adaptation and mitigation, ecosystem restoration, climate-smart agriculture, clean energy cooperatives, collective action and climate resilience, the Earth Regeneration movement, and the power dynamics and contestations in global climate engagements. We seek contributions that connect climate change to collective action and the commons, offering theoretical insights and practical solutions.
Program Committee sub-theme members: Forrest Fleischman, Everisto Mapedza
Panels
Panel 2.1.
In-person
Inequalities in adaptation to common-pool resource problems and climate change
co-Chairs: Sechindra Vallury1 and Nathan Cook2
1University of Georgia, 2Indiana University Indianapolis, USA
Abstract
While the intersections of inequality with commons management and climate adaptation have been extensively studied within their respective fields, key knowledge gaps remain in understanding individuals’ strategic responses to common-pool resource (CPR) challenges as forms of adaptation, and in unequal adaptation to climate change and CPR problems as a key cause of inequality in socio-ecological systems. This panel aims to bridge this gap by integrating insights from both adaptation and CPR scholarships, focusing on the strategic behaviors individuals employ in response to inequalities in access, provision, withdrawal, and use of CPRs, especially in a changing climate. Marginalized communities, who often depend heavily on commons, face significant barriers to accessing adaptation interventions. These barriers include limited financial resources, restricted access to credit, inadequate extension services, and weak social networks. This panel will convene scholars to discuss how individual and community adaptation responses to CPR problems and climate change can be viewed through the lens of strategic behavior. Topics will include, but not limited to, the varying capacities of individuals to adapt, the influence of social and economic inequalities on these capacities, and the potential trade-offs involved in scaling up interventions (e.g., climate-smart agriculture, forest restoration, prescribed burning) within CPR contexts. This panel invites case studies from diverse geographical contexts and methodological approaches.
Panel 2.2.
In-person
Commoning in response to climate change
co-Chairs: Hillary Smith1 and Alejandro Garcia Lozano2
1University of Maine, 2John Jay College of Criminal Justice (CUNY)
Abstract
Throughout the world, climate change is transforming people’s relationships with coastal and marine commons. The unfolding effects of climate change often intersect with different identities and histories of exclusion that have curtailed equitable access to the commons. Despite a range of formal adaptation and mitigation strategies, people with close ties to coastal commons are responding to climate change through diverse forms of adaptation and commoning that reshape the commons and propose visions for alternative climate futures. This panel explores how climate change is altering access to the commons and how, through practices of commoning, different groups and collectives are working to ensure continued access to the commons and adapt to change. In particular, the panel will explore how commoners who have been historically excluded in decision-making around coastal governance – women seafood producers, LGBTQ+/queer beachgoers, urban environmental justice communities – are engaging with formal institutions but also crafting their own independent forms of adaptation through experimentation, situated knowledge, and political organizing. By connecting diverse cases of coastal commoning in response to climate change, the panel will explore the possibilities for more just, people-centered, and gender-inclusive forms of climate adaptation.
Panel 2.3.
In-person
Relationality and the Climate Commons: Understanding, Feeling, Connecting, and Working with Others
co-Chairs: Raul Lejano1, Marcela Brugnach, Juan-Felipe Ortiz-Riomalo, and Fikret Berkes
1New York University
Abstract
Action around climate change poses perhaps the most daunting collective action problem for the commons. The issue transcends institutional boundaries, cuts across all scales of analysis (individual, community, nation, globe), and poses free rider problems encompassing multiple generations. The literature has proposed a number of institutional pathways for engendering collective action, including state-centered, market-based, and communitarian modes of organization. These institutional models trigger collective action through mechanisms involving individual rationality, social pressure, reciprocity, and others. However, in recent years, there has emerged another, underutilized pathway for collective action –relationality. Through social networks, connections across individuals and groups bring about pro-environmental action through mechanisms involving cognitive and emotional pathways (e.g., feeling empathy, caring for others). We will review, first, the conceptual basis for the relational model of collective action and, secondly, present a number of case studies that provide evidence for its activation in situations surrounding the climate commons.
Related References:
Brugnach et al. (2021). Relational quality and uncertainty in common pool water management. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 15188.
Lejano,R. (2023). Caring, Empathy, and the Commons. Cambridge University Press.
Ortiz-Riomalo,J.F. et al. (2021). Inducing perspective-taking for prosocial behaviour in natural resource management. JEEM, 110, 102513.
Panel 2.4.
In-person
Community stewardship towards commonization to address dispossessions
co-Chairs: Pranab Choudhury1, Amalendu Jyotishi2, Bhavana Rao3, and Bibhu Nayak4
1Landstack, 2Azim Premji University, 3Foundation of Ecological Security, 4TISS, Hyderabad
Abstract
Climate change and numerous anthropogenic factors substantially impact the natural resources and livelihoods associated with that. The impact of such changes is visible across different resource systems including forest, grazing lands, coastal and marine systems. Degradation or destruction of these resources lead to not only ecological and livelihood dispossessions but can also have significant impacts on local food and nutrition security. Degradation of forests and biodiversity erosion, shrinking or privatization of grazing land, blue economy led development activities in the coast, estuarine and marine scape not only impact the health and resilience ecosystems but also the livelihoods of the communities dependent on and living with such commons. The proposed panel attempts to understand such varied dispossessions across these common ecosystems and livelihoods, drawing from cases from global south, where climate change and action are expediting such transitions across commons and linked dispossessions.
Literature suggests many ways of response to such dispossessions including climate resilient actions, climate smart communities etc. Our attempt in this proposed panel is to showcase how communities have been traditionally and more so as first responder to climate change and are addressing these transitions. We look at community stewardship – characterized by care, knowledge and agency as one such approach. Contrary to the thought that a community’s collective response can be built from the visible poverty or material absence, the panel would be keen on exploring the possibilities of building a community from the point of their strength or their presence in the form of pride, norms, social cohesion, ecological understanding, tacit knowledge. These often-invisible presences can be identified in the forms of various actions and everyday life. Maintaining biodiversity, conservation of seeds and species, resource use and extraction practices are the visible forms of outcomes depicted through these invisible presences.
The panel propose to bring together the proposers’ work around such approaches in Indian ecosystems while inviting papers from others, thinking about or engaging with similar approaches in global south..
Panel 2.5.
In-person
Restoring Energy Commons: Adapting Established and Creating New Forms of Collective Action for the Green Energy Transition
co-Chairs: Tobias Haller and Jeanne Feaux de la Croix
University of Bern, Switzerland
Abstract
This panel asks for contributions on the transformation of energy commons. Pressures towards greening energy are affecting old, and engendering new energy commons. How do established forms of energy commoning adapt to new discourses, pressures and expectations? How do new energy commons emerge and in what power constellations are they emerging? We invite contributions that explore how energy commons relate to international agendas, state policies and private sector demands for sustainable change. We challenge panelists to analyse how the process of transforming energy commons relates to market forces.The panel further invites papers to discuss conditions for renewable energy systems beyond large infrastructures: what kinds of bottom-up energy provisioning are emerging and how do they intersect with established forms of commoning? We envision an enquiry into the ways new energy commons may differ from ‘classic’ common-pool resources such as water, timber or urban livelihoods. How might commoning in relation to energy affect notions of production, distribution and consumption? Lastly, we ask how energy transformations might affect broader forms of collective action and organization.
Sub-theme 3
Public Policy, the Commons and State-Reinforced Self-Governance
Theme Details
There is a strong relationship between the study of the commons, collective action, and public policy analysis. Public policy is often justified as a means for governments to incentivize individuals to act in the public interest, which may involve creating new types of commons, fostering collective action, and/or regulating these activities through state mechanisms. Many analyses of commons governance explore the interaction between state and non-state actors, considering both informal norms and formal rules that enable diverse forms of cooperation to address complex social-ecological dilemmas, often referred to as state-reinforced self-governance.
This subtheme encourages participants to submit presentation abstracts that explore a range of topics related to commons governance, the State, and public policy. Potential topics include institutional design, polycentric governance, co-management (e.g., co-provision and co-production), and interventions that facilitate diverse outcomes at the intersection of public policy and the commons. We are particularly interested in submissions that advance policy theory, methodology, or practice.
Program Committee sub-theme members: Daniel DeCaro, Tanya Heikkila, Ilkhom Soliev
Panels
Panel 3.1.
In-person
Collective Action Around Negative Externalities in Agroecosystems
co-Chairs: Landon Yoder1, Minwoo Ahn2, Courtney Hammond Wagner3, and Pranay Ranjan4
1Indiana University, 2University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 3USDA ARS, Burlington, VT, 4Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ
Abstract
The role of collective action among farmers to curtail environmental problems has been under studied. The conventional wisdom to dealing with negative externalities, such as water quality degradation, greenhouse gas emissions, or biodiversity loss, is to use regulations, especially negative financial incentives, to discourage problematic practices. In agriculture, particularly in countries where production is heavily subsidized, regulations are usually limited in scope due to their political unpopularity with farmers. Recent farmer protests across multiple European countries in response to EU climate policies for agriculture illustrate the challenges of implementing regulations. Voluntary adoption of pro-environmental management practices has been the standard approach but has not generated substantial environmental improvements. In this panel, we will explore the role that collective action among farmers, as well as their interactions with relevant stakeholders, such as agricultural extension agents and government officials, has and could play in changing the status quo on environmental degradation in agroecosystems. We will look at how collective action around negative externalities may be different from canonical approaches in the commons literature and explore different dimensions of how collective action could complement or be incorporated into existing agricultural policy.
Panel 3.2.
In-person
Governing Chemical Commons
co-Chairs: Vijay Ramprasad1, Karen Bailey2, and Mike Wasserman3
1Williams College, 2,University of Colorado, 3Indiana University
Abstract
The use of chemical pesticides and mineral fertilizers in agriculture continues to present a serious governance problem. Pesticides and fertilizers as private goods help farmers increase yield and protect plants from pests. However, their overuse harm shared benefits from public goods such as soil, biodiversity, and human health. The ‘invisible’ chemical commons emerging from the interaction of pesticide and fertilizer use with economic development, land use decisions, and climate change have underappreciated consequences for both humans and nature. Appropriate policy framework to guide farmer behavior with due consideration to the complex set of tradeoffs between food, climate, biodiversity, and human health while also ensuring equity is largely missing because of several unknowns. For example, monitoring the use of chemicals and their environmental fate is extremely challenging; a detailed picture of their mobility across time and place is largely missing; current institutional designs that encompass both economic and regulatory measures for public decision-makers, and collective actions for individual farmers are yet to deliver successful examples. To address this problem, we present emerging research from India and Uganda and invite panelists working on chemical commons from different fields, geographies, and scales. We aim to initiate a dialogue around the following question: What theories, concepts, and methods from commons research can help to understand chemical commons?
Panel 3.3.
In-person
Restoring the Commons: Linking ecosystem restoration to people and institutions
co-Chairs: Forrest Fleischman1 and Ida Djenontin2
1University of Minnesota, 2Penn State University
Abstract
Ecosystem restoration has emerged as a global policy priority over the last decade. Restoration promises to improve ecosystem functions in ways that benefit people, as well as contributing to climate mitigation and biodiversity protection. Yet the study, design, and implementation of restoration remain dominated by ecological perspectives. We invite papers that examine how people and institutions work to restore commons, and how commons, commons governance processes, and resource users are affected by restoration programs. Important questions include:
What factors and processes drive successful/positive restoration outcomes?
How has attention to social dimensions proven instrumental in restoration implementation and outcomes, and which social aspects matter?
How have different design and implementation approaches (top-down, bottom-up, collaborative, inter/transdisciplinary, etc.) influenced restoration outcomes?
How are equity and justice considerations integrated in restoration, if at all?
How have diverse people from local to global scales benefited and/or been harmed by restoration programs?
How are restoration programs similar to or different from past interventions in commons management and governance, such as REDD+?
Panel 3.4.
In-person
Mapping Commons-State Partnerships Practices: Neighbourhoods as Nexus of Sovereignty
co-Chairs: Torange Khonsari1 and Gifty Amma Adusei2
1London Metropolitan University, 2Daniel DeCaro
Abstract
Chairs: Torange Khonsar, Gifty Amma Adusei, Daniel DeCaro
This panel will convene papers mapping the practices which reframe political processes from representational politics where the power of decision-making lies in the hands of the elite to deliberative democracy where decision-making will occur within the commons in neighborhoods. This is a very complex design system that involves theoretical and practical unpacking. Some of the issues range from 1) Seizing existing legal frameworks that support state-reinforced governance towards commons-public partnership (i.e Localism Act 2011 – UK central government), 2) civic education models and content both formal and informal, 3) distributive commons as legitimate political bodies and their polycentric governance, 4) power, empowerment and the problem of private self-interest in neoliberal society, and 5) modes of production of common pool resources required in a neighborhood. In discussing these themes, the panel will also explore the role of formal and informal neighborhood groups in the governance and stewardship of commons including what are the dynamics between the state, formal neighborhood associations and informal community groups. We question how in these contexts the commons-state partnerships can be structured to ensure equitable power distribution and effective governance? The panel will conclude by mapping of the themes to create a visual artefact for future research and development.
Panel 3.5.
In-person
Advancing an Institutional Grammar of the “State” in State-Reinforced Self-Governance
co-Chairs: Daniel DeCaro1, Emmanuel Frimpong Boamah2, Ute Brady3, Christopher Frantz4, Tanya Heikkila5, and Saba Siddiki6
1University of Louisville, 2University at Buffalo, 3Arizona State University, 4Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 5UC Denver, 6Syracuse University
Abstract
Recent developments in the concept of state-reinforced self-governance (SRSG) are enabling institutional analysts to rethink the role of the State (or states across different jurisdictional scales) in facilitating and constraining self-governing, adaptive, and transformative solutions to complex societal dilemmas. However, the methods needed to analyze formal policy documents, and informal rules-in-use, in order to evaluate SRSG are underdeveloped. This panel will convene case study papers that apply the Institutional Grammar (IG) in novel ways to examine SRSG. We also seek papers that apply novel techniques designed to simultaneously inform the IG and the SRSG conceptualization of the State, State power, self-governance, and the commons.
Panel 3.6.
In-person
Roundtable Discussion: Contemplating Opportunities and Challenges in the Integrative Study of State-Reinforced Self-Governance via the Institutional Grammar
co-Chairs: Daniel DeCaro1, Emmanuel Frimpong Boamah2, Ute Brady3, Christopher Frantz4, Tanya Heikkila5, and Saba Siddiki6
1University of Louisville, 2University at Buffalo, 3Arizona State University, 4Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 5UC Denver, 6Syracuse University
Abstract
This panel will host a roundtable discussion on the opportunities and challenges posed by the integrative study of state-reinforced self-governance (SRSG) via the Institutional Grammar (IG). The panel chairs and audience will be invited to discuss the following key topics, as well as questions and topics generated by the panel moderator(s) and audience: (1) What are “commons” in state-reinforced and other societal systems, where government(s) affect (e.g., enable, constrain, contribute to) the creation, governance, and/or management of commons (reconceptualizing the State, non-state, and the commons)? (2) What can IG methods tell us about State power, Faustianing bargaining (i.e., constitutional decision-making underlying society’s fundamental social contracts), and the constitution of polycentric self-governing societies (conceptualizing State power and constitutional choice)? (3) How can concepts of power and SRSG be studied, measured, and assessed using the IG (multimethods and metrics in the study of SRSG)? and (4) How do we envision future opportunities and directions for the development of the IG, SRSG Framework, and the study of the commons (future perspectives)?
Sub-theme 4
The Nonprofit Sector and the Commons
Theme Details
At the broadest level, our willingness to give time and money for the public good creates a commons that forms the foundation of civil society. This willingness to give manifests itself in many different governance arrangements, including international nongovernmental organizations, nonprofit service providers, philanthropic institutions, social enterprises, and many others. Often these operate outside the realm of either the market nor the state. Some of these institutional arrangements rely on donor appeals, giving traditions, or endowments, while others rely on government funding to deliver services. This theme explores the institutional arrangements for giving time and/or money and how they help or hinder civil society. We invite dialog between and among scholars and practitioners focusing on commons, commoning, and governance arrangements for giving for the public good.
We welcome submissions that explore a range of institutional arrangements for giving time and/or money, including diverse and novel formal and informal institutions used to govern philanthropic and voluntary resources. Additionally, we welcome scholarship that considers how current institutions aggrieve or deplete such resources. Contributions that explore how giving is expressed through various institutional arrangements, both historical and contemporary, are highly encouraged. The theme leaders welcome diverse theoretical and methodological approaches.
Program Committee sub-theme members: Brenda Bushouse, Brent Never, Anas Malik
Panels
Panel 4.1.
TBD
On Giving and Taking: Unpacking ‘support’ for coastal and ocean commons
co-Chairs: Nayana Udayashankar1, Aarthi Sridhar, and Adam Jadhav
1Dakshin Foundation
Abstract
The institutional arrangements that direct the investment of time and resources for marine and coastal commons are as diverse as the ecosystems and cultural communities they harbour. Traditional approaches for giving in the Indian Ocean Region include civil society and community arrangements for volunteering time, collective fundraising and contributing intellectual and physical labour. These practices now share space with professional non-profit organisations whose influence extends beyond the practice of resourcing for change, to shaping the very idea of commons.
These new shifts include influences from neoliberal strains, advancing market-based solutions that bring in financial resources to communities in exchange for protecting commons. Financial support has also been harnessed to rectify drawbacks in traditional commoning practices, such as gender- and caste-based discrimination. The discourse of the blue economy and blue carbon presents a new environment that state and non-state actors negotiate and reproduce in their practices of giving and taking around commons.
The panel offers an opportunity to curate recent theorising around the constituent social forces that construct and constitute ‘support’ for coastal and marine commons and its diverse environmentalisms. This offers a better understanding of the terrain of contemporary institutional arrangements that sustain or degrade the commons.
We invite papers in this panel that discuss global, national and regional ‘giving’ trends for coastal and ocean commons, focusing on practices of collaboration, volunteering, resourcing, sharing and financing. We encourage funders, scholars and practitioners, particularly in the Indian Ocean region, to present their insights and experiences with different approaches to institutional arrangements with ‘support’ for these commons.
Panel 4.2.
In-person
Funding and philanthropy amidst the commons
Chair: Philippa Cohen
Turning Tides
Abstract
Historical patterns of governance and distribution of aid and philanthropy have sustained and exacerbated the marginalization and disenfranchisement of local communities, small-scale fishers and fish workers, and Indigenous Peoples from their commons. New practices in funding (referred to as liberatory, or emancipated, amongst other terms) are decisively shifting away from this history. The first shift is to increase the way aid (including philanthropy derived from private wealth) as a common itself – with efforts to increase inclusivity, power sharing and participation. The second shift is toward a different set of actor’s grassroots actors, and less toward those (NGOs or private actors) that have historically been well resourced and (re)empowered. The third is in the types of action that are supported – shifting away from historically-supported practices parachute research, exclusionary area-based conservation and resource privatisation, toward approaches that commons governors and scholars have long been sensitive to. This panel draws together four funders as discussants – each representing an organisation invested in these shifts. Discussants provide reflexive accounts of their efforts – successes and remaining challenges. The objective of the panel discussion is to open the black box of philanthropy to commons researchers and governors, and to provide an opportunity from those well advanced in commons thinking to share further reflections and insights into the journey of philanthropy toward more liberatory or emancipated approaches.
Panel 4.3.
In-person
Faith-based initiatives and eco-social commons
Chair: Anas Malik
Xavier University
Abstract
This panel brings together recent research on faith-based initiatives that may remake eco-social commons. Faith-based practices and guidelines have significant potential impacts on eco-social commons. Recent efforts such as Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato Si and the Islamic teaching Al-Mizan: A Covenant for the Earth are landmark initiatives for resetting environmental stewardship in the context of substantial political economic shifts. These and other recent religious efforts show sophisticated engagement with integral ecology and ecological economics. The philanthropic traditions- prominently, the use of trusts and endowments called waqf in the Islamic tradition- hold promise for regenerating the commons. Alternative political economic prescriptions, such as equity finance in place of interest-based systems, potentially alter the parameters of corporate decision-making. Indeed, the structure of corporations and corporate governance has the potential to be reshaped.
Sub-theme 5
Knowledge Commons
Theme Details
Knowledge Commons has become a standard and growing sub-theme at IASC conferences, and this continues in IASC 2025. The Knowledge Commons refers to fora that facilitate the sharing of data, information, and technical and cultural knowledge. This type of commons includes shared scientific research, data repositories, cultural heritage, and created or creative works, including knowledge commons that operate as part of or adjacent to natural resource commons.
In this sub-theme we welcome submissions on a wide variety of topics including: open scholarship; open source software and hardware governance; open educational resources; open licensing; open data and data governance (including data pools, data trusts, data privacy and data security); internet commons and platform cooperativism; Smart Cities; commons governance of AI and other intelligence-generating systems; open science/science commons (including sharing of information in health and medicine); indigenous knowledge and science; and the sharing, preservation or protection of cultural and heritage commons. Other related areas not listed here are also welcome.
Program Committee sub-theme members: Melanie Dulong de Rosnay, Brett Frischman, Michael Madison, Kathy Strandburg, Christine Turner
Panels
Panel 5.1.
In-person
Building alternative seed commons: new challenges and international perspectives
co-Chairs: Armelle Maze1, Fabien Girard2, Maria Gerullis3, Cathleen McCluskey4, and Morgane Leclerq5
1INRAE, Université Paris-Saclay, 2Université de Grenoble, France, 3Universitât Gottingen, 4University of Wisconsin-Madison, Organic seed alliance, 5Université de Laval
Abstract
This panel session will explore the contemporary challenges faced in the building of alternative seed commons in the context of growing loss of genetic agrobiodiversity and climate change. In the context of a growing concentration of seed firms, alternative peasant seed networks are nowadays developing across the world by proposing a paradigm shift from the classical non delegative and hierarchical genetic breeding and seed certification towards participatory breeding systems by peasants. The panel will address the legal issues posed at the international by seed treaties, but also the organizational and epistemic challenges posed at national levels for supporting the development and democratization of collective participatory breeding systems of at the farmer level. It also will question the way scientific knowledge and access to data can measure agrobiodiversity evolution
Panel 5.2.
In-person
Geographical Indications as Global Knowledge Commons – new challenges in the context of agroecological transition and climate change
co-Chairs: Armelle Maze1, Marie Odile Nozières2, and Matthew J. Zinsli3
1INRAE University Paris-Saclay, 2Virginie Baritaux and Etienne Polge (INRAE, France), 3University of Wisconsin–Madison - University of Quito
Abstract
This panel session will address, using an extended IAD/SES framework, the challenges faced by local farmers groups benefiting of the legal protection and intellectual property rights on Geographical Indications in the context of agroecological transitions and climate change. The extension worldwide of protected denomination of origin and place-based names has become an opportunity for local economic development and the valorization of local know-how and traditions developed by farmers. However, obtaining such legal protection remains a long process and require reconnecting knowledge commons with complex natural commons, such as human-made agroecosystems. Its is also questioning the role of epistemic power among participants and the nature and role of collective action supporting geographical indications that can favor a logic of equity, democratic participation and empowerment of local communities.
Panel 5.3.
Online
Towards a pedagogy of the commons
co-Chairs: Alekos Pantazis1, Yannis Pechtelidis1, and Noah De Lissovoy2
1University of Thessaly, 2The University of Texas at Austin
Abstract
Educational commons envision a radical shift in education. This innovative approach, by embracing the principles of commons, places students, teachers and parents at the core of the learning process and transforms education to a shared resource, collaboratively shaped by its participants. Hence, educational commons draw from the rich tapestry of natural, urban, cultural, knowledge and digital commons and the respective communities of commoners, proposing a radical rethinking of education as a shared, democratically governed resource. Despite their transformative potential and synthetic properties that bring together all forms of commons transversely, educational commons remain largely underrated in broader discussions of commons. This panel aims to open up the discussion by convening diverse groups, both from the global north and the global south, to share experiences, insights, and challenges. Hence, we invite researchers, practitioners, learners, educators and activists to contribute to a dialogue on the opportunities and complexities of commons-oriented education. By exploring theoretical frameworks and examining successful projects we will collectively envision how to reimagine education as a force for social change grounded in equality, sharing, participation, care, and freedom.
Panel 5.4.
Online
Cultural Commons
co-Chairs: Valeria Morea1, Erwin Dekker, and Carolina Dalla Chiesa
1Erasmus University Rotterdam
Abstract
Cultural commons refer to the variety of artistic and cultural expressions that combine tangible (artifacts) and intangible (ideas, knowledge) elements. Since their first theorization, which was enabled by the establishment of knowledge commons more than ten years ago, many different aspects of the cultural and creative industries have been examined from a commons perspective. However, the scholarship on cultural commons may benefit from a ‘regeneration’ (in the vein of the IASC 2025 theme) toward the consolidation of its theory and methodologies.
Tangible and intangible expressions of arts and culture involve joint consumption and are often non-excludable. They present a variety of social dilemmas, and the traditional reliance on the State to address market failures in arts and culture may simply not work. Arts and culture require constant contribution to avoid depletion and continuous negotiation regarding the values and meanings these practices uphold.
This panel aims to collect state-of-the-art research on the cultural and creative industries from a Bloomington institutional perspective. We welcome both empirical and theoretical work on co-production, institutional analysis development framework, polycentric governance, collective action dilemmas, the cultural civil society, and more.
Panel 5.5.
In-person
Understanding Governance Across Peer-Produced Knowledge Commons' Lifecycles
co-Chairs: Sneha Narayan1, Benjamin Mako Hill2, and Sohyeon Hwang3
1Carleton College, 2University of Washington, 3Princeton University
Abstract
The largest and most studied peer-produced knowledge commons—projects like Wikipedia, free/libre open source software projects like GNU/Linux, and so on—are now decades old. As knowledge commons have grown and matured, they face a shifting range of new governance challenges related to protecting the valuable information goods they have created, such as increasing audience size and diversity, data use by and contributions from AI, coordinated cybersecurity attacks and misinformation campaigns, increased newcomer rejection, and dwindling engagement in governance activity, to name just a few. This panel aims to bring together researchers seeking to document these shifting challenges and how peer-production communities respond to them, while taking stock of the effectiveness of these responses. In particular, we hope to showcase research that takes advantage of the unique features of knowledge commons (such as the availability of detailed longitudinal data, or comparative data across populations of knowledge commons) to analyze these governance challenges across time, and between communities. The panel would be excited to present research revisiting empirical settings that served as sites of earlier work on knowledge commons to describe what has changed.
Panel 5.6.
TBD
Power, Participation, and Heterogeneity in Knowledge Commons
co-Chairs: Michael Madison1, Brett Frischmann2, Madelyn Rose Sanfilippo3, and Katherine Strandburg4
1University of Pittsburgh School of Law, 2Villanova Law, 3Illinois iSchool, 4NYU
Abstract
The theme for this panel is community, and how the attributes of a community contribute to – or detract from – knowledge commons governance. Using the GKC (Governing Knowledge Commons) framework, researchers have explored a variety of topics focused on knowledge resources and have asked how different kinds of knowledge resources, even within a single institutional setting, may produce different kinds of governance dilemmas and knowledge commons responses.
As many contexts intersect in a given institutional setting, the polycentric nature of decision making within knowledge commons engage heterogeneous groups of community members. Polycentricity thus privileges different actors with power to shape governance within each locus.
This panel will highlight the work of junior and emerging scholars who are exploring polycentricity and heterogeneity in knowledge commons. Who is included in knowledge commons governance and what roles do they play? Who is excluded? How, and why, in each instance? Who are affected outsiders? When those details are considered, what are the consequences for the legitimacy of knowledge commons practices? For their trustworthiness?
Sub-theme 6
Transdisciplinary Collaborations for the Commons
Theme Details
Many commons scholars, especially those engaged in field research, collaborate with local communities, Indigenous Peoples, community-based organizations, NGOs, and other non-academic partners to develop and implement their research, advancing both theory and practice. This co-created work has significant implications for the knowledge and information generated. In this subtheme, we will delve into the intricacies of such collaborations, asking the following types of questions: What goals are pursued and achieved, and for whom? How are these collaborations perceived by different partners, and how can they be improved? What challenges and opportunities arise in these collaborations? How can successful collaborations be replicated or scaled up?
We welcome contributions from scholars and practitioners interested in exploring transdisciplinarity across various contexts, experiences, and perspectives. Themes of interest include, but are not limited to: methods, challenges and limitations of transdisciplinary work, co-production in community-engaged work and science-policy-society engagements, the dynamics of participation, the influence of power relations and asymmetries, and the impact of transdisciplinary commons research on sustainability and other important outcomes.
Program Committee sub-theme members: Graham Epstein, Mateja Nenadovic, Ida Djenontin
Panels
Panel 6.1.
Online
Transdisciplinary research and the commons: addressing communication and worldviews gaps between academia and local communities in Latin America
co-Chairs: Luisa Galindo1, Emilie Dupuits, Adriana Saldaña-Espejel, Micaela Trimble, Estrella Chevez, and Paúl Cisneros
1Red de Investigación Participativa en América Latina
Abstract
In Latin America, transdisciplinary commons research is constantly challenged by the need to communicate effectively and comprehend the varied perspectives, knowledge systems, and worldviews between local communities and academic researchers. Communication challenges can materialize through a lack of engagement of academic researchers in fully including local communities into their projects. Some researchers are more involved with pressing issues than others, leading to minimal efforts to foster social transformations in local territories and improve livelihoods. These dynamics directly impact collective action and effective governance in the region.
Since 2021, the Latin-American Network of Participatory Research (Red de Investigación Participativa en América Latina – Red IPAL) seeks to reflect on these challenges through promoting exchanges between academics and grassroots organizations and movements in the region. This panel aims to identify which communication methods, tools, and strategies are most effective in enhancing the communication capacities of local communities and researchers, and in bridging the gap between these groups in transdisciplinary commons research across Latin America. Researchers, practitioners, and other stakeholders are invited to share their experiences with communication in transdisciplinary research. Following the presentations, there will be a question-and-answer session designed to foster dialogue and exchange ideas. Presentations in English, Spanish, and Portuguese are welcome, accommodating our audience’s linguistic diversity.
Panel 6.2.
In-person
Long-term co-production of commons governance: Lessons from Mexico's 10-year partnership among fishers, practitioners, and researchers
Mateja Nenadovic1 and Xavier Basurto2
1University of Rhode Island, 2Duke University
Abstract
Addressing the complex challenges faced by commons and their users in an equitable and sustainable manner requires the co-production of governance arrangements from a broad range of actors. As such, this approach necessitates leveraging diverse experiences and expertise. One example of such transdisciplinary collaboration and co-production of knowledge is the 10 years-long National Plan for the Strengthening of Fishing Organizations in Mexico (PNFOP), which brought together representatives from the fishing sector, non-governmental organizations, and academia. This partnership has aimed to understand the principal problems facing fishers, engage in dialogue with them, and then co-design and support the strengthening of their small-scale fishing organizations. This was done through a series of training sessions, workshops, and assessments with a goal of empowering them to achieve their collective goals, such as income stability, food security, and sustainable resource use. Initiated in 2015 with modest objectives, this participatory action research is now in its fourth phase. This process underscores the importance of trust, long-term vision, leadership, and, most importantly, collaborative effort. The selected presentations will highlight the evolution of roles and visions within this project from the perspectives of each actor group, outline the diverse methodological approaches employed, discuss some of the major findings and their broader implications within and beyond the sector from the standpoint of all involved actors, and summarize different changes that are possible in fishing organizations in a short time period.
Panel 6.3.
In-person
Learning from the Commons to improve conservation action
J.T. Erbaugh1, Aji Anggoro2, Helena Cardenas1, Nikki DeMello1, Alexis Nakandakari1, Nabin Pradhan3, Priya Shyamsundar1, and Nicholas Wolfe1
1The Nature Conservancy, 2Yayasan Konservasi Alam Nusantara, 3University of Michigan
Abstract
This panel of presentations will focus on how contemporary conservation actions draw on findings from the Commons to improve environmental, social, and economic outcomes. Despite decades of research on common-pool resources and their collective management, the integration of insights from the Commons literature into conservation action remains challenging. This is due, in part, to the difficulty and complexity of planning, implementing, and monitoring conservation. However, within the Commons there has been an historical emphasis on studying pre-existing collective arrangements in contrast to transitions to collective action or commoning. Thus, contemporary scholarship on the Commons that focuses on sustainable transitions and commoning movements hold particular relevance for conservation action.
This panel will reflect on the relevance and incorporation of insights from the Commons for establishing collective ownership, management, monitoring, and evaluation of natural resources. Barriers to incorporating insights from the Commons include the stickiness of traditional conservation models that are anathema to collective management; institutional inefficiencies and complexity that inhibit collective management; conflicts and barriers within groups that prohibit effective community management; and the difficulty of scaling collective governance while attending to temporal, spatial, and cultural context. Despite these challenges, there is growing empirical evidence that deliberative democracy, community-based conservation, indigenous management, and equitable conservation are gaining traction within conservation organizations and conservation movements more broadly. The presentations in this panel will synthesize these trends and how they relate to the Commons in retrospect and prospect.
Panel 6.4.
In-person
Liquid Democracy to Govern Public Goods in Web3
Anke Liu
Stellar Development Foundation
Abstract
“In this panel, we explore liquid democracy as an innovative governance model for public goods in the Web3 ecosystem. Liquid democracy uniquely merges direct and representative voting, enabling participants to vote on issues directly or delegate their votes to trusted proxies. This flexibility allows for more nuanced and responsive governance, tailored to the diverse needs and expertise within web3 communities.
One of the case studies I’d like to highlight is Neural Quorum Governance (NQG) and it’s implementation in the Stellar Community Fund, illustrating the practical application of liquid democracy. Developed by BlockScience and the Stellar Development Foundation, NQG provides a more democratic system to allocate funding for public goods in web3 than typical systems, such as plutocratic or quadratic voting.”
Sub-theme 7
Methodological Approaches and Computational Institutional Science
Theme Details
The study of the commons has always benefited from complementary use of a variety of methodological techniques. Advances in the computer-based collection, processing, and analysis of data continue to bring rewards to methodological experimentation and innovation. Simultaneous advances in conceptually grounded institutional analysis approaches, such as the Institutional Grammar, support the integration of theory with these methodological techniques. Through this theme we welcome submissions that are applying various methodological techniques (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, and computational) to advancing institutional science. Computational methods include, for example, automated coding procedures, computer-supported qualitative research, digital commons, machine learning, artificial intelligence, and computer simulation. Also welcome are submissions that apply the Institutional Grammar in concert with these techniques.
Program Committee sub-theme members: Seth Frey, Saba Siddiki
Panels
Panel 7.1.
In-person
Model Based Institutional Development
Chair: Michael Zargham
BlockScience
Abstract
“Model-based systems engineering (MBSE) is a formalized methodology that is used to support the requirements, design, analysis, verification, and validation associated with the development of complex systems.” (Sevchenko, 2020) Like Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD), Systems Engineering situates design and analysis within a specific environmental and/or organization context including consideration for broad class of stakeholders. A stakeholder is any group or an individual who is affected by or is in some
way accountable for the outcome of the engineering project. Stakeholders considered range from local governments, individual citizens to the ecological processes. Digitalization of the engineering processes have affected everything from public engagement to requirements gathering, analysis, design, monitoring and reporting. MBSE is an evolution in the systems engineering practice that leans into these changes without losing sight of local context, stakeholders and accountabilities. At BlockScience, we apply principles, methods and tools from MBSE to the design and analysis of mechanisms, markets and institutions. The panel will explore the application of MBSE to institutional design and analysis with attention to similarities to and differences from IAD, and other frameworks in use within the IASC community of practice.
Panel 7.2.
In-person
The roles of constitutive statements in the governance of social ecological systems
Chair: Edella Schlager
University of Arizona
Abstract
Constitutive statements bring human created artifacts into being, such as different forms of hard and soft infrastructure, action situations, languages, and tools. Until recently, scholars across the social sciences have paid limited attention to constitutive statements, in part because of a lack of a grammar that could be used to systematically identify, code and analyze such statements. The development of the Institutional Grammar 2.0 by Frantz and Siddiki (2022) has addressed this lacuna, thereby opening new lines of research as well as supporting artisans in designing workable governing arrangements for the sustainable use of social-ecological and other governance systems that may be subject to social dilemmas. This panel will be composed of empirically grounded papers that develop and apply innovative uses of the IG 2.0 for constitutive statements. Innovative uses may center on the components of the constitutive statement grammar, explore the relations among regulatory and constitutive statements, incorporate constitutive statements into existing frameworks, among many possible applications. Empirical contexts of the applications may range across all varieties of commons.
Citation: Christopher Frantz and Saba Siddiki. 2022. Institutional Grammar: Foundations and Applications for Institutional Analysis. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86372-2
Panel 7.3.
In-person
Long-term institutional change in polycentric commons governance
Chair: Elizabeth Baldwin
University of Arizona
Abstract
Long-term change has always been an implicit, if not explicit, part of the commons research agenda. One of the core assumptions of the Ostrom tradition is that resource users are fallible but capable of learning. Implicitly, this implies that peoples’ past experiences may be a driver of institutional change over time. Institutions may also change in response to dynamic climatic, ecological, demographic, economic, and political conditions. These kinds of changes are an important but under-studied part of the commons governance research agenda. In a recent paper, Baldwin et al. (2023) drew attention to institutional changes over time in polycentric governance settings. That paper proposed three different “feedback pathways” for institutional change over time, and created a “context-operations-outcomes-feedbacks” (COOF) framework to facilitate cross-case comparison of institutional change over time in polycentric governance arrangements. In this panel (or panels?), we bring together scholars studying diverse instances of commons governance who are interested in using a common framework to examine how and why institutional arrangements have changed over time. While panelists will present their individual papers, we expect the panel to provide a platform for cross-case comparison of institutional change over time.
Panel 7.4.
In-person
Quantitative Institutional Diversity
Chair: Irene Pérez Ibarra
University of Zaragoza, Spain
Abstract
Institutional diversity reflects the evolution and social- ecological adaptability of institutional arrangements, making it crucial for the effective governance of common-pool resources. Institutional diversity can be analyzed across various dimensions, including the variety of grammatical elements within institutional arrangements, types and taxonomies of rules, and the functions of institutions (e.g., configurations of design principles). Quantitative studies of institutional diversity are essential for longitudinal and case study comparisons, and for identificating the factors driving diversity and changes in institutional arrangements. This panel will present studies that compare institutional arrangements across case studies, introduce archetypes of institutional arrangements, employ methods to quantify institutional diversity across one or more dimensions, and analyze factors that explain institutional diversity. The conclusions of this panels will contribute to building a body of knowledge focusesd on quantitative institutional diversity.
Panel 7.5.
In-person
The Institutional Grammar at 30: Revisiting Conceptual Foundations
co-Chairs: Ute Brady1, Edella Schlager2, and Saba Siddiki3
1ASU, 2U of Arizona, 3Syracuse U
Abstract
It’s been 30 years since the Institutional Grammar (IG) was first introduced as a theoretical concept by Sue Crawford and Elinor Ostrom. Since then, the IG has seen widespread use. Applications of the IG offer methodological refinements and opportunities, demonstrate how it can be applied toward the measurement of a variety of institutional concepts, and illustrate how it is readily paired with a variety of social science models, theories, and frameworks in empirical studies of institutional phenomena. Yet, even with its extensive application and development, much of its original conceptualization remains underexplored. This panel invites papers that revisit fundamental Institutional Grammar topics that have to date received limited attention as a way to energize research on these topics. Potential areas of inquiry include exploring the behavioral theory underlying the IG, delta parameters, differentiating rules, norms, and strategies, pragmatics of the IG, among others.
Panel 7.6.
In-person
Advancing the Study of Collective Action in Governing the Commons with the Institutional Grammar
co-Chairs: Ute Brady1, Edella Schlager2, and Saba Siddiki3
1ASU, 2U of Arizona, 3Syracuse U
Abstract
The IG offers a valuable methodological approach for studying the design and performance of institutional arrangements governing collective action. This panel will feature papers in which the IG is applied alongside theories of collective action and various methodological approaches toward empirical assessment of collective action dilemmas, how institutional arrangements align individual and group interests, and related institutional phenomena. Papers will exhibit diversity in topical domains, and as a set, will showcase how the IG can be used to advance understanding of collective action in governing the commons.
Sub-theme 8
Indigenous commons
Theme Details
The Indigenous commons refers to lands, resources, and cultural traditions that are collectively owned and implemented by Indigenous communities. Such practices are rooted in traditional Indigenous ways of living with the natural environment, which emphasize communal stewardship, sustainability, and respect for the natural world. We welcome submissions on various topics related to the commons and Indigeneity, including traditional human-environment relationships, ancestral ecological knowledge, sacred spaces, geopolitical processes, and political alliances among Indigenous Peoples, as well as multi-stakeholder processes. Submissions that explore the impacts of these topics on Indigenous peoples, their sovereignty, and self-determination are also welcome, as are those that examine different ontological views on the commons and the institutions Indigenous communities have created for its management, both past and present.
Program Committee sub-theme members: Deborah Delgado Pugley, Juan Pablo Sarmiento, Elke Kelner
Panels
Panel 8.1.
In-person
Defending the commons in the Peruvian Amazon
co-Chairs: Cesar Gamboa1,2 and Elena Álvarez3
1University of Salamanca, Spain, 2DAR, Peru, 3Ciencia Andina, Universidad del Pacifico, Peru
Abstract
For centuries, indigenous communities have successfully thrived in the Amazon regions, and with respectful collaboration using the forests and river resources. In the last decade, however, threats against these communities have increased throughout the Amazon basin. Illegal logging, illegal mining, and drug trafficking have led to the murder of 33 indigenous people defending their territories and common resources. Because of ineffective governmental support, these defenders, their organizations and communities have proposed communitarian and traditional strategies as well as innovative measures to protect the Amazonian “commons”. In this session we will share the experiences of these indigenous defenders as they try to protect their common territories, and will present feasible and realistic options for their survival.
Panel 8.2.
In-person
Should I stay or should I go? Youth, outmigration and engagement in commons management
co-Chairs: Gabriela Lichtenstein1 and James Robson2
1INAPL/CONICET, 2SENSE, University of Saskatoon
Abstract
In rural areas, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities are being challenged by youth out-migration. The departure of youth, often for economic or education opportunities, produces aging populations in communities of origin, subsequent shortfalls in collective labor, and diminished territorial presence. These changes can weaken the social cohesion and collective action that underpin territorial commons, as well as the pool of ideas essential for community-based land stewardship and institutional renewal. It can also break the inter-generational transmission of traditional knowledge and alter the connection between people and nature.
Our knowledge of youth and their voice, perspective, and participation in the commons, remains emergent at best. This panel will explore if and how the commons is a factor in young peoples’ reason to out-migrate (or return), why the commons need young people, and the kinds of commons young people want to be a part of. In doing so, we explore barriers and opportunities for greater youth engagement as commoners, and show why youth, as the next generation of land managers, are such an important demographic to consider.
The panel invites submissions by academics, NGOs working on (re) establishing the connection between youth and Nature, as well as youth themselves.
Panel 8.3.
In-person
Indigenous Environmental Governance and Land Back
co-Chairs: Sibyl Diver1 and Mehana Vaughan2,3
1Stanford University , 2University of Hawaii at Mānoa and 3U.H. Sea Grant College program.
Abstract
Indigenous leadership in environmental governance is increasingly being recognized through the implementation of Indigenous climate adaptation strategies, the creation of Indigenous and community conserved areas, and land back initiatives. On local, national, and global scales, Indigenous communities are adapting to intensifying impacts of climate change that threaten their lifeways, sovereignty, and connections to place. At the same time, Indigenous environmental leadership is constrained by colonial systems and legal structures, thereby situating Indigenous climate adaptation and environmental governance within an ongoing history of oppression and resistance.
This panel invites presentations on key priorities identified by Indigenous communities seeking to protect and connect with their lands, waters, and communities, such as: land return and restored access to lands and waters for stewardship, cultural practices and food sovereignty; emergency preparedness and hazard reduction; and sheltering in place and keeping communities rooted to land amidst increasing gentrification, development, encroachment, climate-related disasters, and other challenges. Through a lens of place-based studies of Indigenous environmental governance and land back, we seek to analyze facilitators and barriers to these Indigenous-led efforts for interconnected environmental and cultural stewardship.
Key discussion questions invited for this panel include:
• What are some of the primary opportunities and strategies arising for advancing Indigenous environmental governance and land back at the current moment, as well as structural problems preventing Indigenous leadership in governing traditional lands and waters? What is the role in academic-community partnerships in engaging with these?
• How are Indigenous communities and their practices changing state agencies, and collaborative management arrangements? What kinds of institutional innovations are emerging from Indigenous interventions in dominant in land tenure and resource management systems?
• What are some of the diverse examples of Indigenous self-determination taking place in current land back and Indigenous climate adaptation initiatives, and what lessons can be learned from these efforts?
• How are Indigenous communities creating and implementing education systems to prepare future generations of land stewards? And how is Indigenous-led environmental education taking place across multiple cultural and sociopolitical contexts?
• What types of strategies are being used to advance Indigenous-led land protection and community health, where the health of the land and the health of the people are deeply interconnected? How are these strategies supported through research and advocacy?
Sub-theme 9
Commons and Commoning from a Critical Lens
Theme Details
There is now a well-established literature and movement to apply a critical lens to commons analysis. This approach emphasizes the effects of power and considers the impact of larger social, economic, and political structures. Power dynamics, inequality, and environmental justice have become central to this discourse. A growing body of literature from this perspective has pointed to the ways in which the commons are produced and sustained in relation to historic and geographically-varying processes. These broader influences have been shown to shape the conditions that either promote or hinder local collective action. Topics in this subtheme include queering the commons; postcolonial /anticolonial/decolonising ideas around the commons; Black and Indigenous theories around the commons and commoning; subaltern/Global South perspectives on the commons; feminism and the commons; ableness and the commons; political ecology and the commons, and anarchist and communist theorizations of the commons. The theme leaders encourage contributions from a diverse group of scholars, including early career researchers and scholars from the Global South.
Program Committee sub-theme members: Lavanya Suresh, Diana Ojedo, Prakash Kashwan
Panels
Panel 9.1.
Hybrid
Public policy, institutions, and the state: Tracing power in decision-making processes of commons governance in postcolonial societies
co-Chairs: Tejendra Pratap Gautam1, Lavanya Suresh, Hita Unnikrishnan, Naira Dehmel, Maria Gerullis, Verena Hackmann, and Désirée Schwindenhammer
1Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay
Abstract
The state plays an indispensable role in policy-making to govern the commons, collective action, and formal and informal institutions in postcolonial societies. To overcome socio-ecological crises, the state uses public policy as a tool to manage and govern the commons, thereby often limiting citizens’ capacity to access these commons.
In the analysis of interactions between state, citizens, and non-state actors in policy processes, the role of power is emerging as an important factor in understanding these complex set-ups. Explicit considerations of power may reveal underlying colonial continuities, entrenched power asymmetries, and persisting inequalities that cut across social, economic, and political arenas and affect the decision-making processes and institutions under investigation. However, emerging approaches to conceptualising power are yet to find broad application in policy and institutional anlyses.
In this panel, we invite contributions that draw on postcolonial, decolonial, and subaltern theorizations or framings to integrate critical reflections on power in their public policy analysis of commons governance.
Panel 9.2.
In-person
Power Dynamics and Social Inequalities in Commons Governance
co-Chairs: Praneeta Mudaliar1 and Prakash Kashwan
1University of Toronto Mississauga
Abstract
The discourse on power has become a crucial focus for commons scholars, especially in the context of striving for a more just and sustainable future. Recent studied highlight how race, gender, caste, and class influence power dynamics and shape local and multi-level collective action in a range of commons, including urban and transboundary commons. Critical commons scholars have expanded the understanding of commons beyond economic resources to include social and symbolic aspects, such as affective attachment to commons and the philosophy and praxis of commoning.
To further the research agenda on power, inequalities, and institutions, this panel invites submissions that draw upon diverse ideas and disciplines in the present context of the polycrisis. We welcome contributions that focus on, but not necessarily limited to, the following questions:
How do micro-level social inequalities and power dynamics shape local commons governance?
In what ways do political and economic structures shape institutions and influence individual and collective actions in the commons?
How can conceptualizing commons as social and symbolic spaces enhance our understanding of power dynamics?
What strategies can be employed to address and mitigate power imbalances in commons governance?
How do intersectionality and solidarity manifest in the governance and management of commons?
Panel 9.3.
Hybrid
Goods, games, and power: Indivisibility, asymmetry, and the politics of interdependence
co-Chairs: Bryan Bruns1, Hita Unnikrishnan, Maria Gerullis, Sara Lorenzini
1Independent Researcher and Consulting Sociologist
Abstract
Papers in this panel question assumptions about the nature of goods and social dilemmas in commons. They explore how variations in interdependence may influence environmental governance. Rather than intrinsic, dichotomous, or fixed types of goods; variation in uses, users, and interdependence, and how institutions deal with these, can shape the excludability, subtractability, and indivisibility of environmental goods and the potential for conflict and cooperation. Rather than a few symmetric static social dilemmas, interdependence may be better understood as diverse, dynamic, mostly asymmetric, and involving various forms of power. Unpacking the complexity of power in social-ecological systems requires going beyond typical social dilemma models to develop a better typology of how power influences the dynamics and outcomes of social-ecological systems, and their governability. This panel will invite participant questions and present brief provocations to stimulate conversations about going beyond conventional conceptions of commons to better understand environmental governance in contexts of heterogeneous interests, asymmetric situations, and power dynamics. Additional paper proposals related to the panel topics are invited and the scope of the abstract and panel session may be adjusted accordingly.
Panel 9.4.
In-person
Inequality, inequity, and the commons: Experimental advances
co-Chairs: Nathan Cook1 and Sechindra Vallury2
1Indiana University Indianapolis, 2University of Georgia
Abstract
A growing body of research examines issues of inequality and inequity related to the governance of common-pool resources and local public goods. The common-pool resource literature argues that resource commons can create assignment problems—such as asymmetries between head-end and tail-end users of surface irrigation systems—that can lead to inequality and conflict. Some institutional scholarship emphasizes the importance of asymmetric resources and power for explaining how communities craft and sustain institutions for collective action. Finally, inequality and inequity are common themes in the body of policy research evaluating institutions and policies for polycentric commons governance. Much of this research finds that policy arrangements that purport to be ‘participatory,’ ‘deliberative,’ or ‘bottom-up’ can often deliver unequal benefits to the users of natural resources and local public goods, entrench the power of local elites, and fail to engage women and members of marginalized groups. This panel invites experimental research, broadly defined, that moves these literatures forward. This includes innovative laboratory experiments, survey or choice experiments, and randomized trials or quasi-experiments. In 2023, the Biennial IASC Conference in Nairobi, Kenya hosted two panels on this topic, and the purpose of this panel is to highlight advances in this area made since the Nairobi conference.
Panel 9.5.
In-person
Restoring the Commons in 20th and 21st century Latin America: opportunities and challenges
co-Chairs: Christian Büschges and Lisa Alvarado Grefa-Lüscher
University of Bern
Abstract
The (post-)colonial history of Latin America is largely characterized by processes of land accumulation and commodification by small social elites at the expense of communal lands inhabited by indigenous and Afro-American groups. Several administrative and land reforms aimed at restoring local control over communal resources in the 20th century had no lasting effect or did not take sufficient account of local traditions and interests. Since the 1990s, however, in the context of global sustainability and climate change debates, indigenous and African American communities have had increasing success in defending their communal worldviews and practices amidst a new phase of land grabbing and extractivism.
The panel seeks to combine theoretical reflections and empirical case studies on how indigenous and African American cosmovisions and practices have been able to challenge traditional Western models of development and grapple with the ongoing limitations, contradictions and conflicts characterizing the regeneration of the commons in Latin America from the 20th century to the present day.
Panel 9.6.
In-person
Solidarity Economy and the Commons
co-Chairs: Emily Kawano1 and People's Network for Land & Liberation (Cooperation Jackson, Cooperation Vermont, Wellspring Cooperative, Native Roots Network, Incite Focus, Community Movement Builders)
1US Solidarity Economy Network
Abstract
There is a huge overlap between the Solidarity Economy and the Commons. We look forward to exploring commonalities and differences, co-developing a shared language/analysis, and strengthening real world connections between these movements.
The Solidarity Economy (SE) is a global movement to build an economy and world that centers the well being of people and planet. It is a framework that connects solidarity economy practices that align with its values of solidarity, participatory democracy, equity in all dimensions, sustainability and pluralism (many paths), to express and realize a post-capitalist vision.
SE Practices exist in all sectors of the economy, with practices that are old (even ancient) and new, alternative and mainstream. SE embraces the commons, as well as include worker co-ops, mutual aid, unpaid care work, peer lending, credit unions, public banking, community land trusts, co-op housing, food co-ops, social currencies, and participatory budgeting.
The solidarity economy provides a framework to connect up these currently siloed practices so that we begin to perceive them as a system rather than nice, but isolated, experiments. There’s a huge foundation to build on—and the Commons is a critical, core backbone.
Panel 9.7.
TBD
Caste and Gender in the Village Commons
co-Chairs: Gummadi Sridevi1 and Amalendu Jyotishi2
1School of Economics , University of Hyderabad, 2School of Development, Azim Premji University. Bangaluru, India.
Abstract
Traditional agrarian institutions which are intertwined with a hierarchical social order of caste and gender in the governance of the affairs of civil, political and economic structure of the village, are instrumental in the governance of commons including land, water, grazing land, and village forests. Caste and gender permeate a structure of hierarchy in terms of the accumulation of and access to resources so as the traditional governance of commons and their access. Commons and their governance in Global south particularly is deeply intertwined with the institution of caste and gender. The historical evolution of access and control over the productive resources, in its relationship with land had dis-entitled vulnerable groups from having any share of ownership, be it common or private. In this panel, we propose in-depth studies from the global south to bring out and unfold the rights, access and utilisation of commons, their spatial and longitudinal transformation, and how caste and gender play a significant role in these contexts. We also foster the at the arrival of new commons aimed at equalization of access to natural resources in contrast to their denial in the past. Such a process of equalization has positive effects in terms of enhanced agrarian productivity for the depressed castes and women reposing the need for a policy of commonization as a principle of equi-distributive and efficient policy.
Panel 9.8.
TBD
Local impacts of global regimes of Enclosures: Perspectives from Global South
co-Chairs: Saurabh Chowdhury1, Sujoy Subroto, Sammy Snachez, and Ana Watson
1University of Calgary
Abstract
Devastating wildfires and unparalleled precedent of extreme weather events like heat waves, droughts, floods, are sparkling questions about the human-nature connections and pathways towards sustainable and environmentally just futures. Amidst the growing concerns regarding justice and equity aspects, decarbonization regimes and market-driven biodiversity conservation approaches have emerged as instrumental strategies to governing natural resources and addressing the sustainability crisis. However, these solutions are often critiqued for remaining deeply connected with certain colonial approaches and hegemonic narratives that reinforce pre-existing marginalization and nature-society division, leading to disruptions in the management of local commons with contested outcomes such as territorialization, bureaucratic violence, systemic injustice, and impacts on traditional livelihoods, rights, and epistemology, etc. This panel critically analyzes the sustainability and efficacy of current conservation practices and decarbonization narratives by asking human-centric questions of the emerging regimes that seek to enclose the commons and obscure alternative imaginaries and possibilities through greenwashing, land grabbing, and fortress conservation, etc. The panel organizers are members of the POLLEN (Political Ecology network) node at the University of Calgary which is an interdisciplinary group of post-graduate scholars focusing on human-nature relationships in multiple global south locations (Bangladesh, Colombia, Peru, and India).
Sub-theme 10
Commoning the Commons - Integrating Knowledge and Practice
Theme Details
The practice of commoning involves the collaborative management of shared resources by a community, guided by principles of mutual aid, sustainability, and equitable access. Commoning is widely seen as a response to privatization, technocentric approaches and historical enclosures of the commons, which continue today through processes like large-scale land grabs and diversion of commons for alternate ‘developmental’ usages. Commoning as a practice challenges traditional power structures and promotes collective, inclusive decision-making. It emphasizes the interconnectedness of social and ecological systems, advocating for community-driven governance of shared resources that enable both human and environmental well-being.
Examples of commoning include community governance of forests, pastures, water bodies, gardens, community land trusts, time banks, and open-access publishing and data sharing. This theme particularly welcomes submissions from practitioners and scholars collaborating with practitioners to analyze the impacts of commoning initiatives and explore the practice of commoning in their specific contexts, especially through the lens of gender equity, ecological well-being, and social justice.
Program Committee sub-theme members: Kiran Singh, Ted Rau, Cecile Green
Panels
Panel 10.1.
TBD
Transmission and Innovations in Commons and Commoning
co-Chairs: Catherine Tucker1 and Mateja Smid-Hribar2
1University of Florida, 2Anton Melik Geographical Institute, The Research Centre of Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Ljubljana
Abstract
This panel welcomes explorations of how commoners maintain and remake themselves and their commons to fit changing circumstances. Intergenerational transmission of practices and shared values, effective responses to social-economic and climatic change, and thoughtful evolution of institutions to manage shared resources are key to sustainable commons and successful commoning. Examples might include novel collaborations, innovations in governance and leadership, experimentation with new techniques and technologies, approaches for intentional learning, and emergence of new rationales for commoning and strategies for defending commons. Given current global challenges, this panel will recognize concerns, successes and challenges that arise for commoners as they undertake creative commoning amidst societal, political economic, and environmental uncertainties. Possible questions of interest encompass, but are not limited to: What types of transmission processes and innovations show promise for maintaining and renewing commons (natural and cultural)? To what extent do innovations and transmission efforts contribute to active engagement of people of all ages, genders and capacities with commons management and governance? How do innovations in commoning carry promise for strengthening communities, distributing economic benefits more equitably, and supporting environmental justice? What approaches have broader relevance for building and renewing local institutions to sustain communities and their commons over time?
Panel 10.2.
In-person
Principled and pragmatic approaches to formation and governance of knowledge sharing communities
Chair: Greg Bloom
Ostrom Workshop, Indiana University
Abstract
Designed for Track 10 (Commoning the Commons – Integrating Knowledge and Practice) this panel brings together veteran organizers Greg Bloom and Elizabeth Barry who will reflect on their field-tested principles and tactics for governance of knowledge-sharing communities. Bloom will present on the subject of a paper contributed to the Ostrom workshop – The Values of Having Values, about values statements as constitutional boundary objects. (Depending on the structure of the panel, Bloom may also reference a separate presentation about practical approaches to participatory research and development of common information infrastructure – referencing a visual vocabulary developed through the Open Referral Initiative.) Barry will present on the principles that can guide wise collective choices for technology selection and community self-governance, illustrated through local uses of the Pol.is occurring around the world, and the network governance model developed by a global community of hackers known as the Gathering for Open Science Hardware. We’d welcome other participants who can contribute practical knowledge that applies the theory of the commons to the work of community building and governance.
Panel 10.3.
In-person
Commons literacies: theory and practice
co-Chairs: Seth Frey1 and Cecile Green
1UC Davis
Abstract
Although commons scholars usually attend to the social structures, processes, and mechanisms of a common pool resource management institution, the skills and training of individual members and users is also a vital component of community governance of natural resources. In this panel we invite a conversation around ontologies for sustainable resource management skills, analysis and evaluation of education programs, and design of training and leadership programs that support commons management regimes. With this panel, we focus on the individual, psychological, and personal development dimensions of community managed institutions. Relevant themes include traditional and contemporary approaches to training, the role of leadership, the psychology of commons stewardship, and education and the commons.
Panel 10.4.
Hybrid
"How Patterns of Commoning Reveal Commons as Relational Social Systems"
co-Chairs: David Bollier1,2 and Johannes Euler
1Schumacher Center for a New Economics, USA, 2Commons-Institut, Germany
Abstract
Learning to see commons as relational social systems, and not primarily as creatures of property law and standard economics, can help us understand how commons arise and maintain themselves. In this panel, David Bollier and Johannes Euler will cohost a discussion about the “patterns of commoning,” a framework developed by Bollier and Silke Helfrich in their 2019 book, ‘Free, Fair and Alive.’
Inspired by Christopher Alexander’s methodology for creating “pattern languages,” ‘Free, Fair and Alive’ identified more than twenty-five patterns of social, economic and governance practices that animate and sustain commons. The patterns are not a universal blueprint, but rather a flexible meta-template that names intersubjective experiences and dynamics of commoning while taking account of unique histories, landscapes, and other contextual factors. This approach to commoning is useful in explaining how relational dynamics are creative and resilient, helping to generate diverse forms of (mostly nonmarket) value.
The panel will also introduce a deck of oversized “playing cards” depicting more than thirty patterns of commoning that have been identified to date. The cards are used to help people reflect on the governance and provisioning practices of their commons, and as didactic tools for helping people learn about commoning.
Panel 10.5.
In-person
Grassvasion: a semi-cooperative game about a common bad
Chairs: Elizabeth Baldwin
University of Arizona
Abstract
This session might depart from the usual panel format. I have been working with a game developer to develop a table-top game for 3-4 players that illustrates basic concepts around invasive grasses. The game is a form of science communication from an NSF grant studying the governance of invasive grasses in Southern Arizona. In the game (and in real life), a diverse set of actors needs to build their shared capacity to stem the invasion before the invasion overwhelms the community. The game is semi-cooperative. Different players take on different roles (a rancher, a park ranger, an activist, an analyst) with different individual objectives and different incentives to work together (or not) to stem the invasion. If possible, I would like to bring a poster and a few copies of the game, and run an informal session where people can learn about the game and play a few rounds. We’re very flexible and happy to work with the organizers to make this a fun session.
Panel 10.6.
In-person
Envisioning Food Systems as Commons: Integrating Governance for Equity and Justice
co-Chairs: Udita Sanga1 and Shubhechchha Sharma
1Gerald J. & Dorothy R. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy
Abstract
Industrial agriculture treats food as a commodity, prioritizing profitability over nutritional quality, cultural significance, and environmental impact. An alternative approach is “Food as Commons,” where collective stewardship of food resources ensures equitable access to healthy, nutritious food. Here, food systems function as common pool resources, relying on shared access to resources like land, water, and seeds, and are managed through community-based models such as gardens, farmers’ markets, and cooperatives. This framing advocates for sustainable agriculture and local food systems, where food is a fundamental human right and a cornerstone of social justice and ecological sustainability. It values traditional knowledge, fosters community involvement, and promotes policies that prioritize public health, social equity, and environmental sustainability. Solutions include enhanced coordination through polycentric governance, systemic approaches, equity-focused policies, policy coherence, and collaborative partnerships. This session aims to delve into research that addresses the challenges in food production and management while promoting equity and justice within the framework of food as commons, ensuring fair access to resources and opportunities for all stakeholders in the food system. Emphasis will be on the perspectives of those disadvantaged by current food models, including voices from the global North and South, with Indigenous critiques central to the discussion.
Panel 10.7.
TBD
Heightened states: Emergency as an accelerator of commoning practices
Chair: Jerram Sophie
Te Herenga Waka, Victoria University of Wellington
Abstract
As is often said, there are no commons without commoning. Commoning practices vary throughout the world but are often based on awareness of shared resources, shared constraints and the need for conviviality and cohesion in the group. This awareness is heightened during periods of emergency, or natural disaster (earthquakes, floods, storms, fires, landslides, tornadoes etc), when people are forced to come together in states of collectivity with other people that are not usual community members. The usual rules of individual ownership are forgone in the light of this temporary state of emergency response.
Some communities prepare for this collectivity during ‘normal’ states of operation and others are less prepared. What does our increase in weather and natural disaster events mean for our practices of commoning? What can we learn from the heightened state that is created by the sudden change in our environment and personal circumstances, for our future planning and commoning?
Panel 10.8.
TBD
Commoning the tertiary - education and insitition
Olivia Hamilton
RMIT University
Abstract
Commoning is intrinsically adaptable to the tertiary classroom, curriculum, and institution. A sense of connection and situatedness within the university is essential for a positive student experience and learning outcomes but also for academics. The processes of commoning acknowledge complexity and challenges but encourage agency in students and academics recognise strengths across a group rather than work in competition and to actively participate in creating their working and learning environment. Through commoning, the teacher can become adaptive, intuitive, and attuned and quietly resist the values that corporate management has brought to tertiary education by identifying interstices where other approaches, attitudes, and futures can be fostered. Commoning can also foster different kinds of working relationships and research approaches inside the tertiary institution. As an actant of inclusion, it can sustain new forms of collaboration, production and research that sustain a sense of care for the work and others involved. Commoning can also underpin attitudes of soft activism, deflecting resources or agendas of a neoliberal institution to effectively establish and further shared processes, resources and experiences. This panel is interested in practices, approaches and case studies on commoning in working or teaching within the tertiary institution.
Sub-theme 11
Urban commons
Theme Details
According to the latest United Nations projections, over 68% of the world’s population is expected to live in cities by 2050. Cities present a landscape of opportunities, challenges, and inequities, within which urban commons play critical roles in providing social and natural infrastructure that sustain lives and livelihoods. Urban commons refer to resources within cities that are formally or informally managed by diverse communities for shared use and benefit. These resources can be physical spaces, services, and digital platforms accessible to community members. Urban commons are a significant source of social and ecological development but also have the potential to exacerbate social exclusion.
We invite submissions that explore various aspects of urban commons. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to, the history of urban commons, global and regional perspectives on urban commons, Ostromian, critical, and legal perspectives, urban commoning practices, and case studies of urban commons initiatives such as collective urban housing, community gardens, urban forests, pedestrian zones, public and street art installations, mass transit systems, and bike-sharing programs.
Program Committee sub-theme members: Hita Unnikrishnan, Albert Mumma
Panels
Panel 11.1.
In-person
Alternative Pathways for Inclusive Urban Planning and Governance in Post-colonial Africa
Chair: Geoffrey Nwaka
Abia State University, Uturu, Nigeria
Abstract
The panel takes the position that city planners and government officials, who aspire to international standards of modernity in Africa, must recognize and come to terms with the local reality of rapid urbanization and extensive urban informality, now and in the foreseeable future. Urban planning and governance in Africa have for too long been tied to the colonial tradition. Sadly, UN-Habitat estimates that Sub-Saharan African cities now have close to 200 million slum dwellers, most of who work in the informal sector where they simply do not earn enough to the high standard of shelter and services that planners expect. While some elite neighborhoods enjoy high quality housing and residential environment, the bulk of the urban poor live in appalling and life threatening conditions. Conventional urban planning, with an idealized notion of the modern African city, tends to see the informal sector in these cities as ‘a chaotic jumble of unproductive activities’ that should be removed through forced eviction and repression. But current research suggests that the path to urban peace and sustainability in Africa lies in building more inclusive and socially equitable cities that accommodate the ways of life of majority of city inhabitants. How do we build African cities that are not disconnected from people’s needs? The panel invites papers that provide fresh insights on alternative pathways to sustainable urban futures in Africa, and on appropriate urban planning and governance models and visions for the continent. We shall consider the colonial heritage of urban planning and governance in Africa, and ways to rethink and re-envision the cities in response to rapid urban growth and extensive informality.
Panel 11.2.
In-person
Lessons from the (In-)formal Urban South
Chair: Jean-Philippe De Visscher
UCLouvain
Abstract
In the Global South, rapid urbanization and laissez-faire policies have led to a surge in informal self-organizations that compensate for significant deficiencies in governmental services, including mobility, sanitation, security, waste, water, and natural risk management. Consequently, integrating the concept of “people as infrastructure” (Simone, 2002) into public service provision has become a pragmatic necessity (UN-Habitat Global Action Plan, 2022), implemented through numerous community-driven and participatory urban policies, research programs, and NGO actions.
In Northern contexts, over-reliance on state-market policies hinders the transition to agile, context-specific, and resilient urban systems (Dellenbaugh et al., 2015). Despite the growing recognition of the importance of transdisciplinary and participatory approaches in addressing intricate “wicked” urban issues and creating new pathways for transition (Lawrence et al., 2022), numerous barriers prevent the expansion and broader impact of commons-oriented initiatives in energy, mobility, food production, care, water and waste management, and ecological stewardship.
This panel aims to discuss the epistemological, methodological, and practical achievements and shortcomings from research and practices in the (in-)formal Urban South as a source of ideas for addressing challenges in the Global North.
Panel 11.3
In-person
The role of urban commons in sustainable and equitable city making
co-Chairs: Samuel Agyekum1, Leandra Maria Choffat, Tianzhu Liu, Priscilla Pambana Gutto Bassett, and Jean-David Gerber
1University of Bern
Abstract
At the turn of globalisation and neoliberalism, conditions of scarce urban resources have worsened due to pressures of growth. As a result, social and ecological values are increasingly considered secondary to the stringent requirements of capitalist expansion. As self-organised islands of decommodification and critique, urban commons contribute to addressing these challenges, but are still deeply embedded in the reproduction of capitalist inequalities. This suggests the need to pay attention to power relations as it is crucial to the survival of the commons and their existence in highly contested spaces such as the urban.
The proposed panel welcomes both empirical and theoretical contributions focussing on diverse urban commons – food, greening, housing, water, transport, etc. – from a broad range of disciplines (institutional, degrowth, feminist, decolonial and social justice approaches and more). It aims to cover a wide range of geographical locations and unique commoning practices. The panel aims to address the core question: How do urban commons redefine social relations, responsibilities, power relations, and access to resources of those within and outside the commons, in conformity with an ecologically responsible and socially just transition?
Panel 11.4
Hybrid
Public health and urban commons
Chair: Hita Unnikrishnan
The University of Warwick
Abstract
Public health dilemmas and associated institutional arrangements have always been at the forefront of driving transformations within urban commons. Examples of these transformations have historically included dramatic changes in the distribution, property rights bundles, and governance of urban blue and green commons in response to diseases such as cholera, malaria, and plague. For instance, several water bodies in colonial India and elsewhere were covered and built over responding to experiences with both cholera and malaria. In more recent times, successive waves of COVID-19 have seen the opening and closing of various urban commons in direct relation to changing knowledge about how the virus manifested. Accordingly, the first wave of the pandemic was characterised by stringent restrictions and lockdowns affecting access to open spaces such as lakes, forests and parks, while the second wave was characterised by the opening up of these very spaces for newer activities. Yet, despite the prominent role played by public health in shaping urban commons, there is a paucity of knowledge about the mechanisms driving these transformations and their impact on already politicised and gendered spaces. Through this panel we wish to invite contributions that explore this underrepresented dimension of urban commons research.
Sub-theme 12
Open call and emerging approaches
Theme Details
The commons represents a diverse array of fields and perspectives, and we acknowledge that the themes selected for IASC 2025 do not fully capture the breadth of interests among commons scholars. Moreover, the scope of commons work extends beyond scholarly publications. We invite submissions of both scholarly and practice-based work on aspects of the commons that may not align closely with our primary conference themes. We also welcome contributions that fit within the overarching theme of the commons but may not conform to the traditional framework of an academic conference. Examples include visual arts, performance arts, audio works such as podcasts and soundscapes, game-based activities, virtual reality experiences, and more.
Program Committee sub-theme members: Michael Cox, Sergio Villamayor-Tomas
Panels
Panel 12.1.
In-person
Governing Coupled Infrastructure Systems in Transition
co-Chairs: Marco Janssen and John Marty Anderies
Arizona State University
Abstract
Governing the commons involves navigating the interplay between different types of infrastructure (natural, social, hard, soft, and human). The Coupled Infrastructure Systems (CIS) Framework was developed to study the role of institutional arrangements, political processes and human decision making in providing and managing shared infrastructures and has been applied to traditional natural commons (forests, irrigation systems, wildlife), but also the built environment (transportation, urban water, energy), and even the lunar surface.
This panel invites recent work of scholars using the CIS framework, especially in the context of transitions. CIS are increasingly exposed to rapid changes in their social ((geo)political systems, demographics, economic systems) and natural (climate change, resource depletion) components. Hence there is a need to understand how to govern CIS in rapidly changing conditions. Examples include (1) the energy transitions that cope with increasing instability of electricity systems, harmful impacts from mining, and injustice of energy access; (2) urban water transitions that must balance rapid changes in water supply and demand with physical infrastructure; (3) urban mobility challenges of co-occurring rapid increases of cars and motorcycles, diffusion of clean fuel options, self-driving cars, and a need for more and better roads.
Panel 12.2.
In-person
Ethno-Kino and the Commons in Imagined Eco-Narratives.
Chair: Antony Osome
University of Cologne
Abstract
Ethno-Kino as a film-making approach is dedicated to authentically documenting the lives, practices, and beliefs of a people in their ecosystem. This panel hypotheses’ that imagined narratives blend factual anthropocentric details with creative elements, offering an all-round view of communal life and, that performative acts serve as a form of investigation, interrogation, and representation of reality through a creative lens, hence inspiring inquisitiveness about critical issues regard the Anthropocene. In the words of Margaret Meed (1901-1978), “What people say, what people do and what people say they do are entirely different things.” As such, documenting with a keen eye enhances our understanding of lived experiences and what is at stake in the process of representation, and this approach involves innovating cinematic language to reiterate documents, creating a new episteme and a cognitive method of thinking and unthinking. The panel seeks papers discussing how ethnographic storytelling and symbolic representations in motion pictures can irradiate the values and challenges related to shared natural resources as well as how they are preserved, contested, and re-imagined across generations. Additionally, it seeks evaluations of current storytelling structures to determine if they resonate with contemporary practices or require a redefinition to better reflect on the commons.
Panel 12.3.
In-person
Ethics and the Commons
Chair: Stefan Partelow
University of Bonn, Germany
Abstract
This panel will act as both a book launch event for the edited volume Ethics and the Commons to be published by Springer Nature in late 2024 or early 2025. The volume is edited by myself (Partelow). The session will offer speed talks from authors who have contributed chapters to the book. The panel will also accept new submissions related to the topic of ethics and the commons. The short speed talks (approximately 5 minutes) will be followed by an open roundtable discussion with the panelists and the audience on the core ethical issues facing research on the commons, the ethics of the commons, and broader ethical debates in science.
Panel 12.4.
In-person
Rewilding as a tool for imagining new commons alliances?
Chair: Jean Bacchetta
Université de Neuchâtel, Institut d'ethnologie
Abstract
Over the last decades, rewilding has become a popular method for biodiversity restoration. In Europe and North America, rewilding projects primarily rely on “keystone species” reintroduction to recreate more stable, diverse and resilient ecosystems. Examples are multiple: bison in Portugal, Switzerland and Romania, bears and wolves in Italy, sturgeon in Sweden, buffalo in the North American Great Plains….
As these projects are implemented in anthropogenic landscapes involving multiple social actors, they can be fruitfully viewed as potential socio-ecological commons. This panel seeks to apply a commons perspective to analyze how rewilders imagine human-nature relationships. How are relations (re)constructed with these species, which have sometimes been absent from these territories for centuries? How are diverse communities involved in these projects, which require new alliances but also create new conflicts between actors with divergent interests (political, economic, religious, ethical)? Do rewilding projects exist that are based on local collective actions and do they have the potential for commons management that is more ethical, durable, horizontal and equitable or are these rather thought and implemented in a top-down manner? And what can be learned from societies who have always been living with these “keystone” species in a commons context?
Submissions based on on-going empirical studies are encouraged. We hope in this way to create alliances of knowledge about present and future rewilding project, bringing together practitioners with commons scholars from various disciplines.
Panel 12.5.
In-person
Commons through storytelling and verse
Chair: Hita Unnikrishnan
The University of Warwick
Abstract
There is a rich diversity of scientific and practitioner-based literature that tell tales of diverse commons – from cities to forests, and from earth to space. Scientific analyses and practitioner experiences analyse these cases we study through particular viewpoints and present them through traditional academic writing or reports. However, these accounts often leave out such interesting anecdotes that truly bring the everyday in those spaces to life. There are stories of hope, of despair, of times long gone, of heroism and valour, and of actors whose deeds are so clumsy or colourful that they just beg to be told!
Such stories can only be told through alternative means such as storytelling or verse which reveal yet more dimensions of the commons under investigation. They describe commons in novel ways and offer enormous potential to reach broader audiences. In this un-conference panel, we wish to both draw on our own experiences in writing verse, short stories, novels, and illustrated books around the commons as well as invite anyone who wishes to tell new stories about their own cases. By necessity, the panel will follow an un-conference format and involve activities such as reading compositions and co-creating new stories and/or verses.
Panel 12.6.
In-person
Using Games and Experiments for Behavioral Research: Opportunities and Challenges in an Era of Abundance
Chair: Minwoo Ahn
University of Arizona
Abstract
In commons studies, there is a long tradition of research using games and experiments to test hypotheses and simulate social interactions. These games and experiments have proven to be an exciting way to advance behavioral research in commons for over three decades. In this tradition, studies have found the importance of communication, enforcement, leadership, and informational uncertainties to improve (or undermine) cooperation. In this panel, we welcome presentations that study underlying mechanisms related but not limited to such factors as communication, rule enforcement, information. Methodologically, while behavioral research expands as digital platforms and tools are more available, there are still challenges to behavioral research including costly data collection using multi-player games and deriving systematic and comparable implications from abundant studies. While creativity is needed to further advance research such as combining existing game and experimental tools with AI-powered tools, we also need deep deliberation among researchers to sort out and make sense of contradictory findings. This panel will present different ways of conducting behavioral research using games and/or experiments and will engage in discussions on how to use existing/or new tools to overcome current challenges to better understand environmental and climate behavior around commons management.
Panel 12.7.
Online
Food commons as a transformation pathway towards sustainable and just food systems
co-Chairs: Sarah Steinegger, Tianzhu Liu, Johanna Gammelgaard
University of Bern, Switzerland
Abstract
Contemporary food systems are often dominated by global corporations that employ technological fixes, such as upscaling, rationalization, specialization, and standardization with the objective of achieving economies of scale, and ultimately, mass consumption. At the same time, a vast and diverse array of practices and modes of organization under the conceptual heading of food commons and commoning have persisted and continue to emerge. They include, for example, self-organized food production and redistribution, collective eating and cooking, and alternative food networks. These initiatives rely on shared resources, community-based decision-making, and joint responsibility. This prompts questions about their potential for transformation pathways towards more sustainable and just food systems: – How do food commons and commoning initiatives organize food systems, including food production, processing, distribution, and consumption? – What are the defining characteristics of these initiatives across different (geographical, cultural, socio-economic, political) contexts? – Which strategies do they use to achieve their intended transformations? – Which conditions and challenges affect the realization of their transformative potential? This panel aims to bring together empirically grounded contributions on food commons and commoning initiatives to answer, among others, the above questions . It seeks to explore concrete practices and institutional arrangements by which food commons and commoning initiatives are seeding change.