A Global Conceptual Framework for Categorizing Environmental Change Based on Property Rights and Compensation

  • Volker MauerhoferEmail author


The paper offers a new conceptual framework based on property rights and financial compensation in different nature conservation situations in order to provide a globally applicable system for the assessment of participation of public and private stakeholders in envisaged changes within those situations. These situations of change represent a modification from conservation toward non-conservation and vice versa. The framework distinguishes further between governance systems based on command and control as wells as on negotiation. Within these main change situations and governance types, the framework allows the distribution of change situations into 8 main sections. These main sections are further separated into 32 sub-sections by means of different property right and compensations situations among public and private stakeholders. The theoretical utility of this new framework is then demonstrated by testing it by means of a random sample of 74 papers (25 %) out of representative 297 papers from the academic literature dealing with property rights. These 74 papers provided practical examples for situations of change in conservation as evidence for most of the 32 sub-section. Several papers provide examples for more than one sub-section. The allocation of papers to these different subsections is described and discussed in detail. This widely possible allocation proofs in general the global applicability and usefulness of the new framework. The framework also proofed to be appropriate for formally (rule of law based) and informally (customary law based) institutionalized situations where rights are given to public and private stakeholders for other practical cases of public participation.


Environmental protection Negotiation framework Legal position Ownership Disaccord 


  1. Aburto J, Gallardo G, Stotz W, Cerda C, Mondaca-Schachermayer C, Vera K (2013) Territorial user rights for artisanal fisheries in Chile—intended and unintended outcomes. Ocean Coast Manage 71:284–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal A, Ostrom E (2001) Collective action, property rights, and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Politics Soc 29:485–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahmed I, Deaton BJ, Sarker R, Virani T (2008) Wetland ownership and management in a common property resource setting: a case study of Hakaluki Haor in Bangladesh. Ecol Econ 68:429–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barsimantov J, Racelis A, Biedenweg K, DiGiano M (2011) When collective action and tenure allocations collide: Outcomes from community forests in Quintana Roo, Mexico and Petén, Guatemala. Land Use Policy 28:343–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Behera B, Engel S (2006) Institutional analysis of evolution of joint forest management in India: a new institutional economics approach. Forest Policy Econ 8(2006):350–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bogale A, Taeb M, Endo M (2006) Land ownership and conflicts over the use of resources: implication for household vulnerability in eastern Ethiopia. Ecol Econ 58:134–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bottazzi P, Dao H (2013) On the road through the Bolivian Amazon: a multi-level land governance analysis of deforestation. Land Use Policy 30:137–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caballero-Miguez G, Garza-Gil MD, Varela-Lafuente MM (2012) Legal change, property rights system and institutional stability: the case of the floating raft culture in the Galician mussel sector. Ocean Coast Manage 55:84–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell B, Mandondo A, Nemarundwe N, Sithole B, De Jong W, Luckert M, Matose F (2001) Challenges to proponents of common property recource systems: despairing voices from the social forests of Zimbabwe. World Dev 29:589–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cinner JE, McClanahan TR, MacNeil MA, Graham NAJ, Daw TM, Mukminin A, Feary DA, Rabearisoa AL, Wamukota A, Jiddawi N, Campbell SJ, Baird AH, Januchowski-Hartley FA, Hamed S, Lahari R, Morove T, Kuange J (2012a) Comanagement of coral reef social-ecological systems. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 109(14):5219–5222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cinner JE, Daw TM, McClanahan TR, Muthiga N, Abunge C, Hamed S, Mwaka B, Rabearisoa A, Wamukota A, Fisher E, Jiddawi N (2012b) Transitions toward co-management: the process of marine resource management devolution in three east African countries. Global Environ Change-Human Policy Dimensions 22:651–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dumyahn SL, Pijanowski BC (2011) Beyond noise mitigation: managing soundscapes as common-pool resources. Landscape Ecol 26:1311–1326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gerber JD, Knoepfel P, Nahrath S, Varone F (2009) Institutional resource regimes: towards sustainability through the combination of property-rights theory and policy analysis. Ecol Econ 68:798–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glück P (2002) Property rights and multipurpose mountain forest management. Forest Policy Econ 4:125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gómez-Márquez I, Alejano LR, Bastante FG (2011) Mining compatibility with other projects in Spain: solutions and benefits. Resour Policy 36(1):22–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hayes TM (2007) Does tenure matter? A comparative analysis of agricultural expansion in the Mosquitia Forest Corridor. Human Ecol 35:733–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hayes TM (2010) A challenge for environmental governance: institutional change in a traditional common-property forest system. Policy Sci 43:27–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Khan SR, Khan SR (2009) Assessing poverty-deforestation links: evidence from Swat, Pakistan. Ecol Econ 68:2607–2618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Khan S, Haque CE (2010) Wetland resource management in Bangladesh: implications for marginalization and vulnerability of local harvesters. Environmental Hazards-Human and Policy Dimensions 9:54–73Google Scholar
  20. Kusters K, de Foresta H, Ekadinata A, van Noordwijk M (2007) Towards solutions for state vs. local community conflicts over forestland: the impact of formal recognition of user rights in Krui, Sumatra, Indonesia. Human Ecol 35:427–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lescuyer G (2013) Sustainable forest management at the local scale: a comparative analysis of community forests and domestic forests in Cameroon. Small-Scale For 12:51–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lescuyer G, Assembe-Mvondo S, Essoungou JN, Toison V, Trébuchon JF, Fauvet N (2012) Logging concessions and local livelihoods in Cameroon: from indifference to alliance? Ecol Soc 17(1):7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lund JF, Treue T (2008) Are we getting there? Evidence of decentralized forest management from the Tanzanian Miombo Woodlands. World Dev 36:2780–2800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mahanty S, Suich H, Tacconi L (2013) Access and benefits in payments for environmental services and implications for REDD+: lessons from seven PES schemes. Land Use Policy 31:38–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mauerhofer V, Nyacuru F (2013) Distributional dimensions of PES: general issues and critical aspects. In: Proceedings of the 19th annual international sustainable development research conference, 1–3 July 2013, Stellenbosch University, South Africa, Retrieve 1 July 2013, from
  26. Mauerhofer V, Hubacek K, Coleby A (2013) From polluter pays to provider gets: distribution of rights and costs under payments for ecosystem services. Ecol Soc 18(4):41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCay BJ, Creed CF, Finlayson AC, Apostle R, Mikalsen K (1995) Individual transferable quotas (ITQs) in Canadian and US fisheries. Ocean Coast Manage 28:85–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Munton R (1995) Regulating rural change—property rights, economy and environment—a case study from Cumbria, UK. J Rural Stud 11:269–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mwangi E (2007) Subdividing the commons: distributional conflict in the transition from collective to individual property rights in Kenya’s Maasailand. World Dev 35(5):815–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nagendra H, Gokhale Y (2008) Management regimes, property rights, and forest biodiversity in Nepal and India. Environ Manage 41:719–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Naidu SC (2011) Access to benefits from forest commons in the Western Himalayas. Ecol Econ 71:202–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nielsen MR, Treue T (2012) Hunting for the benefits of Joint Forest Management in the Eastern Afromontane Biodiversity Hotspot: effects on bushmeat hunters and wildlife in the Udzungwa Mountains. World Dev 40(6):1224–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nguyen TQ (2006) Forest devolution in Vietnam: differentiation in benefits from forest among local households. Forest Policy Econ 8:409–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ostrom E, Schlager E (1996) The formation of property rights. In: Hanna S, Folke C, Mäler K-G (eds). Rights to nature: ecological, economic, cultural and political principles of institutions for the environment. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 127–156Google Scholar
  35. Penker M (2009) Landscape governance for or by the local population? A property rights analysis in Austria. Land Use Policy 26:947–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Persha L, Blomley T (2009) Management decentralization and montane forest conditions in Tanzania. Conserv Biol 23(6):1485–1496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Quinn CH, Fraser EDG, Hubacek K, Reed MS (2010) Property rights in UK uplands and the implications for policy and management. Ecol Econ 69:1355–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rodgers C (2010) Reversing the ‘Tragedy’ of the commons? Sustainable Management and the Commons Act 2006. Mod Law Rev 73:461–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rothgang M (1997) Ökonomische Perspektiven des Naturschutzes. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, p 315Google Scholar
  40. Roy AKD, Alam K, Gow J (2012) A review of the role of property rights and forest policies in the management of the Sundarbans mangrove forest in Bangladesh. Forest Policy Econ 15:46–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schlager E, Ostrom E (1992) Property-rights regimes and natural resources: a conceptual analysis. Land Economics 68(3):249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schlager E, Ostrom E (1993). Property rights regimes and coastal fisheries: an empirical analysis. In: Anderson T, Simmons R (eds) The political economy of customs and culture: informal solutions to the commons problem. Rowman & Littlefieldpp, Lanham, pp 13–41Google Scholar
  43. Sekhar NU (2004) Fisheries in Chilika lake: how community access and control impacts their management. J Environ Manage 73:257–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thanh TN, Sikor T (2006) From legal acts to actual powers: devolution and property rights in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. Forest Policy Econ 8:397–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Trawick PB (2001) Successfully governing the commons: principles of social organization in an Andean irrigation system. Human Ecol 29:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wiber MG, Rudd MA, Pinkerton E, Charles AT, Bull A (2010) Coastal management challenges from a community perspective: the problem of ‘stealth privatization’ in a Canadian fishery. Mar Policy 34:598–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ybarra M (2011) Slashed and burned: the debate over privatization of Q’eqchi’ Lands in Northern Guatemala. Soc Nat Resour 24:1027–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yin RS, Yao SB, Huo XX (2013) China’s forest tenure reform and institutional change in the new century: what has been implemented and what remains to be pursued? Land Use Policy 30:825–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Life SciencesUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.UNU IAS—United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of SustainabilityTokyoJapan
  3. 3.PRIMAFF—Policy Research Institute of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and FisheryTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations