RESOURCE:

The resource appropriated from Port Phillip Bay is scallops. Port Phillip Bay is located on the southern coast of Victoria Province, Australia. It empties into the Bass Strait. Scallops are located at 4 fathoms or deeper.

SCREENER:

Case: Port Phillip Bay, Australia

The information regarding the following common-pool resource system was taken from empirical evidence from a field setting. Data on the system was extracted from a chapter in a book. Currently, there are no additional documents to cite which may provide further information about this common-pool resource.

These documents describe two resources in detail. The primary resource is the Port Phillip Bay, situated in Victoria of Australia. More generally, it is located in Pacific. The system's sector is that of fisheries. Relatively good information has not been collected about the stakes of participants who appropriate from Port Phillip Bay. The condition of this resource is well understood. Complete information is not available regarding the strategies used by key groups interacting with the system. There is thorough documentation of the operational rules for this resource. This is the result of a high level of confidence that the authors who recorded the features of Port Phillip Bay have a complete knowledge of its particulars. Furthermore, the authors have provided sufficient data to formulate a structured coding process.

The Port Phillip Bay covers an unknown area. There are 51-100 total appropriator teams appropriating from the resource . At the beginning of the period discussed by the authors, there was quite an abundant supply of biological and physical resources withdrawn compared to the number of units available. Appropriator teams for the resource are never formally organized.

Sturgess, Dow, and Belin describe the Victorian scallop fishery which is located in Port Phillip Bay (PPB) and in Lakes Entrance (LE) and the evolution of the management system used to regulate it. The PPB began as a commerical operation in 1963 with production peaking in 1967 with 2 million kg. of meat taken by approximately 170 boats. Catches declined thereafter and by 1971 only 4 boats were working the PPB grounds. In 1970, however, an adjacent ground was discovered at LE with approximately 68 boats fishing. In the meantime PPB recovered with 1 million kg of meat harvested in 1973. In 1968 a licensing scheme was established for PPB and in 1971 the scheme was extended to include LE. Three types of licenses were issued which cost $8.00. They are PPB only, and LE only, or both. These licenses transfer with the sale of the boat. Over time additional rules have been added in addition to licenses, such as individual quotas and closed seasons. The authors argue that too much effort is continued to be expended on the PPB grounds while the LE grounds appear to still be profitable.

CITATION(S):

Sturgess, N. H., N. Dow, and P. Belin (1982) "Management of the Victorian Scallop Fisheries: Retrospect and Prospect." In POLICY AND PRACTICE IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT, edited by N. H. Sturgess and T. F. Meany, 277-316. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.*

RESOURCE INFO:

The resource appropriated from Port Phillip Bay is scallops. It is produced biologically and is a renewable stationary unit. Port Phillip Bay is located on the southern coast of Victoria Province, Australia. It empties into the Bass Strait. Scallops are located at 4 fathoms or deeper.

The boundary of this resource has natural/constructed and institutional arrangements which limit entry. The boundaries of this resource are smaller than the location, and exist in one country, and are not divided among multiple general purpose local jurisdictions at a single level. The boundaries of this resource are independent of a development project designed by non-residents.

There are distinct and stable micro-environmental or ecological zones within this resource (inferred). The quality and/or quantity of units is regularly better in some of the zones than in others (inferred). The case information did not indicate whether or not a variance in quality between zones has ever created conflict among appropriators.

The study did not indicate whether or not there are natural barriers within the resource. There are not strategic points within the resource where the main flow of the scallops can be controlled (inferred). There is considerable, and predictable variation over space in the availability of scallops within the resource (ambiguous). The case study did not include information regarding whether or not there is considerable variation in the flow of scallops within a single year. There is considerable, but unpredictable variation in the flow of scallops from year to year (ambiguous).

The bottom topography of Port Phillip Bay is primarily sand (inferred).

LOCATION:

The appropriation resources are situated on the southern coast of Australia, in the province of Victoria. The location includes Port Phillip Bay, the bay on which Melbourne is located, and the inshore coastal area off of Lakes Entrance in the Bass Strait. The boundaries of the location are both institutional and physical their specific aspects. The appropriation resource present in this location consists of scallops (coding). Regarding the use of the irrigation system, there were few adverse affects throughout the entire period in the relationships among appropriation processes.

The system is located within one country. Within this country, the system's location is not divided among several general purpose local jurisdictions at the same level. A permanent population lives year round in this location (highly confident). There is frequent contact and communication between people in this location and officials in a nearby administrative center (highly confident). Additionally, the most common mode of transportation in this region is -1. This location is also characterized by an economy that is stable and tied to other economic networks during the entire time period (educated guess).

The latitude of this location is 38'S, and its longitude is 145'E. The elevation of this location is 0 meters. The highest elevation is 0. The lowest elevation of this location is 0. The region's average annual rainfall is unknown. The region's average annual evapotranspiration is unknown. The distribution of rainfall and evapotranspiration per month is as follows:

January precipitation: N/A, evapotraspiration: N/A

February precipitation: N/A, evapotraspiration: N/A

March precipitation: N/A, evapotraspiration: N/A

April precipitation: N/A, evapotraspiration: N/A

May precipitation: N/A, evapotraspiration: N/A

June precipitation: N/A, evapotraspiration: N/A

July precipitation: N/A, evapotraspiration: N/A

August precipitation: N/A, evapotraspiration: N/A

September precipitation: N/A, evapotraspiration: N/A

October precipitation: N/A, evapotraspiration: N/A

November precipitation: N/A, evapotraspiration: N/A

December precipitation: N/A, evapotraspiration: N/A

RESOURCE:

The resource appropriated from Port Phillip Bay is scallops. Port Phillip Bay is located on the southern coast of Victoria Province, Australia. It empties into the Bass Strait. Scallops are located at 4 fathoms or deeper.

OPERATIONAL LEVEL:

TYPE OF SITUATION

The processes described in the related documents are primarily related to appropriation alone. The formal owner(s) of the resource discussed in this study is a regional government. The set of individuals who have rights to withdraw from this resource is well-defined. As of the beginning of this period, the owners are exercising (or attempting to exercise de jure) and effective in gaining closed access to this resource. Since the beginning of this period, the appropriators are not exercising, or attempting to exercise closed access to this resource.

EVENTS MARKING THE BEGINNING ACTION SITUATION

It is estimated that the operational level coded on this form ended in 0. The estimated duration of the patterns that are described in this form is 1 to 10 years. Throughout the duration there was change made primarily by an external authority in operational, collective, or consititutional rules. There was no change in resource size or structure. There was no new technology introduced to the system over the duration of the patterns coded on this form. There was no information included in the study to indicate whether or not there was a substantial external change in the value of the units appropriated. The quantity of units available did not have documentation regarding changes due to the appropriation patterns of other appropriators' withdrawals from the same production or distribution resource. There were no new groups starting to withdraw units from the appropriation resource. There was no recorded change to one or more variables internal to the operational level. The variables that changed were -2. The author does not begin the description of this case at this point in history.

CONDITIONS AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF PERIOD COVERED BY THIS FORM*

For biological resources at the beginning of this period, the balance between the quantity of units withdrawn and the number of units available was quite abundant (confident). For biological resources at the end of this period, the balance between the quantity of units withdrawn and the number of units available was an extreme shortage (inferred). For physical resources at the beginning of this period, the balance between the quantity of units withdrawn and the quantity of units needed, given the usual patterns of use for these units was quite abundant (confident). For physical resources at the end of the period the balance between the quantity of units withdrawn and the quantity of units needed, given the usual patterns of use for these units, was an extreme shortage (inferred).

The following includes the available statistics on the use of this resource at the beginning of the time period, followed by the end of the time period:

Tons of fish harvested per year at the beginning of the period: 1000 (highly confident)

Tons of fish harvested per year at the end of the period: 9 (highly confident)

It is not indicated whether or not the units were sexually mature at this size or age at the beginning of this period. It is not indicated whether or not the units were sexually mature at this size or age at the end of this period.

*In fisheries and other biological systems, this is the maximum sustainable number of units. In irrigation, this refers to the optimal water requirements of the crops in the established fields served by this system.

At the beginning of the period, the units were predominantly sold in local markets.

At the end of the period, the units were predominantly sold in local markets.

As of the beginning of the period, the quality of the units being withdrawn from the resource was extremely high (inferred). As of the end of the period, the quality of the units being withdrawn from the resource was poor (educated guess). At the beginning of the period of the study, there was no information provided regarding whether or not there are problems of pollution in this or other resources, due to the way units are being appropriated. At the end of the period of the study, there was no information provided in the case study regarding whether or not there are problems of pollution in this or other resources due to the way units are appropriated. As of the beginning of the period, the extent of technical externalities resulting from the appropriation activities of participants from this resource was not indicated. As of the end of the period, the extent of technical externalities resulting from the appropriation activities of participants from this resource was not indicated. At the beginning of this study, the interference between the appropriation technology for this resource and the appropriation processes for other resources in this location had no effect on the appropriation resources (inferred). At the end of this study, the interference between the appropriation technology for this resource and the appropriation processes for other resources in this location had no effect on the appropriation resources (inferred). At the beginning of this study, holding all inputs constant there was no information included in the study regarding whether or not rent dissipation occurred with fewer appropriator teams and/or equipment. At the end of this study, holding all inputs constant there was no information included in the study regarding whether or not rent dissipation occurred with fewer appropriator teams and/or equipment. At the beginning of this period the appropriators shared moderate to high levels of mutual trust (e.g. oral promises given high credence) (ambiguous). At the end of the period the appropriators shared moderate to high levels of mutual trust (e.g. oral promises given high credence) (ambiguous). ## Unknown markup: Start ##By the end of this period no change had occurred in the property rights regime related to the appropriation resource (inferred). At the end of this period the owners were exercising, or attempting to exercise, de jure and effective closed access to this resource (inferred). At the end of the period the appropriators were not exercising, nor attempting to exercise, closed access to this resource (confident).

INFORMATION LEVELS

There is no information in the study to indicate the availability of maps or charts of the appropration resource for use by the appropriators. Maps and/or charts of the appropriation resource do not differ from the production and distribution resource. The appropriators of this resource can be seen by each other while withdrawing and delivering units (confident). No documentation was included in the study regarding whether or not the appropriators of this resource are in radio communication with each other while appropriating from the resource. There was no information provided to indicate whether or not there are actions being taken, by appropriators or officials, to generate information about the condition of the resource. There are always records of the withdrawals from this resource kept in a systematic way (inferred). There was no information in the study about whether or not there are records of the physical factors which directly affected the resource kept in a systematic way. There was no information in the study about whether or not there are records of the appropriators' contributions to monitoring of the resource kept in a systematic way. Records are kept in a language accessible to most of the appropriators (ambiguous). The keepers of these records are officials at some level (ambiguous). The case study did not indicate whether or not these records are available for inspection by appropriators. The study did not indicate whether or not there are arenas being used for the exchange of information about conditions of the resource. The appropriators have an intimate knowledge of the characteristics of this resource (inferred).

POTENTIAL ACTIONS AND LEVELS OF CONTROL

The quality or quantity of the units available to the appropriators are not adversely affected by the strategies of prior appropriators, because there are no prior appropriators (inferred). This study did not include information on whether or not there are problems of pollution resulting from activities of others who are not appropriators of this resource or inhabitants of this location (e.g. acid rain, sewage disposal). The number of markets in which this resource is sold was not included in the case study. The study does not indicate whether or not there was an insurance mechanism available to the appropriators related to variability of income from the resource.

PATTERNS OF INTERACTION

Differences between subgroups relating to gender identification are not included in the case study. Differences between subgroups relating to ethnic identification are not included in the case study. Differences between subgroups relating to clan identification are not included in the case study. Differences between subgroups relating to racial identification are not included in the case study. Differences between subgroups relating to religious identification are not included in the case study. Differences between subgroups relating to languages spoken does not exist (inferred). Differences between subgroups relating to general cultural views of the resource system and its use are not included in the case study. Differences between subgroups relating to any problems that affect communication are not included in the case study.

The general manner in which appropriators related to one another during this study is a relatively positive, reciprocal manner -- the presumption was made that long-term relationships are involved and positive actions are undertaken without a specific expectation of return (educated guess).

POSITIONS AND PARTICIPANTS

At the end of the period studied there was no information coded to indicate whether or not the position of non-appropriator (individuals prevented from using the resource) existed. At the beginning of the period there was a general estimate of some undocumented number appropriators. There was a general estimate of some undocumented number appropriators at the end of the period. A general estimate of the number of participants in the team appropriation process was 501-1000, at the beginning of the period (highly confident). A general estimate of the number of participants in the team appropriation process was Less than 25, at the end of the period (highly confident). The "official" position of monitor (apart from the willingness of all appropriators to monitor) does exist, and monitors are employees of an external governmental authority. This position monitors rules devised by regional collective choice processes (column 2 of the rules form).

The case study did not include information regarding whether or not the appropriators monitor the appropriation activities of each other apart from the monitoring of any "official" guards. The general estimate for the number of official monitors on duty at one time during peak hours was not included in this case study. The study did not indicate how many of the monitors were full-time.

NUMBER AND RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SUBGROUPS

There will be 1 subgroup form(s) completed in relation to this operational level form. The ID number(s) of the subgroup(s) coded are as follows: 99.1 - -2 - -2 - -2

EVALUATION OF RESULTS

The study did not indicate whether or not there are appropriators who were consistently disadvantaged in this period. The study did not indicate whether or not the relatively worst off appropriators have or have not been cut out of their benefits from this resource or substantially harmed.

AUTHOR'S EVALUATION AND CAUSAL ASSUMPTIONS

In this coding form the author focuses on the readers' concept of results and the evaluation of results (inferred).

During this time period, the fishery was seriously overfished. The author discusses withdrawals per unit of effort based on -1

SUBGROUP:

Participants:

This appropriation group are those fishers who hold a scallop license to dredge for scallops in Port Phillip Bay. The criteria for who is a member is well defined (highly confident). . .

The following statements characterize the composition of this subgroup's population with respect to variables that may affect the capacity to communicate effectively:

There is no difference in composition with regard to languages spoken (highly confident). The language spoken by most members of the subgroup is English.

.

Legal Rights:

Members of this subgroup have de jure rights of access (highly confident). The right to withdraw is held by this subgroup de jure (highly confident). Rights to participate in management of this resource are not held either de facto nor de jure (highly confident). Exlusion from use of the entire resource is not exercised either de facto nor de jure (highly confident). Members of this subgroup cannot exercise the right to decide who can be excluded from particular zones within the resource either de facto nor de jure. (highly confident). The separable right of transfer to the flow of units from this resource is not held either by de jure nor de facto (educated guess). The separable rights to exercise transfer to shares of this appropriation resource, or closely related production and/or distribution resources are neither held de jure nor de facto (inferred).

Stakes and Resources:

The length of time this subgroup has regularly appropriated from this resource is 1 through 10 years (inferred). The proportion of this subgroup that currently appropriates similar units from other resources is less than 10% (highly confident). No real alternatives for the supply unit are available (confident).

Potential Actions and Levels of Control:

A noticeable impact on the balance of the quantity of units withdrawn and the number of units available in this resource would occur in a drastic reduction of this subgroup's appropriation activities (highly confident). Keeping in mind the physically available levels of withdrawal that are possible from this resource, the following shows the extent to which rules concerning different aspects of withdrawal constrain appropriation: technological rules heavily constrain (highly confident), time limits which limit the range of choice heavily constrain (highly confident), quantity rules cause unknown contraints, marginal units, or units obtained by increasing levels of appropriation, cause unknown contraints.

Technology:

The appropriative power of the technology used threatens the balance between units withdrawn and units available even if no new users are added (ambiguous).

Strategies Adopted:

At the beginning of the period the rate of unit withdrawals was accelerating (inferred). At the end of the period the rate of unit withdrawals was decelerating (confident). During this time period members have not invested resources, such as their own labor, in maintaining or improving the structure of the appropriation resource (educated guess). Members do not have access to an alternative source of supply (inferred).

Subgroup Results:

This subgroup appropriates 91%-100% of its total appropriated units at the end of this period (confident). By the end of this time period the appropriates from this resource have remained approximately constant (inferred). The absolute quantity of appropriation units obtained by this group has become smaller (inferred).

OPERATIONAL LEVEL:

TYPE OF SITUATION

The processes described in the related documents are primarily related to appropriation alone. The formal owner(s) of the resource discussed in this study is a regional government. The set of individuals who have rights to withdraw from this resource is well-defined. As of the beginning of this period, the owners are exercising (or attempting to exercise de jure) and effective in gaining closed access to this resource. Since the beginning of this period, the appropriators are not exercising, or attempting to exercise closed access to this resource.

EVENTS MARKING THE BEGINNING ACTION SITUATION

It is estimated that the operational level coded on this form ended in 0. The estimated duration of the patterns that are described in this form is 1 to 10 years. Throughout the duration there was change made primarily by an external authority in operational, collective, or consititutional rules. There was no change in resource size or structure. There was no indication in this study which indicated whether or not new technology was introduced to the resource during the time of coding. There was no information included in the study to indicate whether or not there was a substantial external change in the value of the units appropriated. The quantity of units available did not change due to a change in appropriation patterns of other appropriators' withdrawals from the same production or distribution resource. There was a new local group starting to withdraw units from the appropriation resource. There was no recorded change to one or more variables internal to the operational level. The variables that changed were -2. The author does not begin the description of this case at this point in history.

CONDITIONS AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF PERIOD COVERED BY THIS FORM*

For biological resources at the beginning of this period, the balance between the quantity of units withdrawn and the number of units available was an extreme shortage (highly confident). For biological resources at the end of this period, the balance between the quantity of units withdrawn and the number of units available was apparently balanced (highly confident). For physical resources at the beginning of this period, the balance between the quantity of units withdrawn and the quantity of units needed, given the usual patterns of use for these units was an extreme shortage (highly confident). For physical resources at the end of the period the balance between the quantity of units withdrawn and the quantity of units needed, given the usual patterns of use for these units, was apparently balanced (highly confident).

The following includes the available statistics on the use of this resource at the beginning of the time period, followed by the end of the time period:

Tons of fish harvested per year at the beginning of the period: 9 (highly confident)

Tons of fish harvested per year at the end of the period: 165 (highly confident)

It is not indicated whether or not the units were sexually mature at this size or age at the beginning of this period. It is not indicated whether or not the units were sexually mature at this size or age at the end of this period.

*In fisheries and other biological systems, this is the maximum sustainable number of units. In irrigation, this refers to the optimal water requirements of the crops in the established fields served by this system.

At the beginning of the period, the units were predominantly sold in local markets.

At the end of the period, the units were predominantly sold in local markets.

As of the beginning of the period, the quality of the units being withdrawn from the resource was poor. As of the end of the period, the quality of the units being withdrawn from the resource was high (educated guess). At the beginning of the period of the study, there was no information provided regarding whether or not there are problems of pollution in this or other resources, due to the way units are being appropriated. At the end of the period of the study, there was no information provided in the case study regarding whether or not there are problems of pollution in this or other resources due to the way units are appropriated. As of the beginning of the period, the extent of technical externalities resulting from the appropriation activities of participants from this resource was not indicated. As of the end of the period, the extent of technical externalities resulting from the appropriation activities of participants from this resource was not indicated. At the beginning of this study, the interference between the appropriation technology for this resource and the appropriation processes for other resources in this location had no effect on the appropriation resources (educated guess). At the end of this study, the interference between the appropriation technology for this resource and the appropriation processes for other resources in this location had no effect on the appropriation resources (educated guess). At the beginning of this study, holding all inputs constant there was no information included in the study regarding whether or not rent dissipation occurred with fewer appropriator teams and/or equipment. At the end of this study, holding all inputs constant there was no information included in the study regarding whether or not rent dissipation occurred with fewer appropriator teams and/or equipment. At the beginning of this period the appropriators shared moderate to high levels of mutual trust (e.g. oral promises given high credence) (inferred). At the end of the period the appropriators shared moderate to high levels of mutual trust (e.g. oral promises given high credence) (inferred). ## Unknown markup: Start ##By the end of this period no change had occurred in the property rights regime related to the appropriation resource (inferred). At the end of this period the owners were exercising, or attempting to exercise, de jure and effective closed access to this resource (inferred). At the end of the period the appropriators were not exercising, nor attempting to exercise, closed access to this resource (confident).

INFORMATION LEVELS

There is no information in the study to indicate the availability of maps or charts of the appropration resource for use by the appropriators. Maps and/or charts of the appropriation resource do not differ from the production and distribution resource (inferred). The appropriators of this resource can be seen by each other while withdrawing and delivering units (confident). No documentation was included in the study regarding whether or not the appropriators of this resource are in radio communication with each other while appropriating from the resource. There are actions being taken, by appropriators or officials, to generate information about the condition of the resource (inferred). There are always records of the withdrawals from this resource kept in a systematic way (educated guess). There was no information in the study about whether or not there are records of the physical factors which directly affected the resource kept in a systematic way. There was no information in the study about whether or not there are records of the appropriators' contributions to monitoring of the resource kept in a systematic way. Records are kept in a language accessible to most of the appropriators (inferred). The keepers of these records are officials at some level (inferred). The case study did not indicate whether or not these records are available for inspection by appropriators. The study did not indicate whether or not there are arenas being used for the exchange of information about conditions of the resource. The appropriators have an intimate knowledge of the characteristics of this resource (inferred).

POTENTIAL ACTIONS AND LEVELS OF CONTROL

The quality or quantity of the units available to the appropriators are not adversely affected by the strategies of prior appropriators, because there are no prior appropriators (inferred). This study did not include information on whether or not there are problems of pollution resulting from activities of others who are not appropriators of this resource or inhabitants of this location (e.g. acid rain, sewage disposal). The number of markets in which this resource is sold was not included in the case study. The study does not indicate whether or not there was an insurance mechanism available to the appropriators related to variability of income from the resource.

PATTERNS OF INTERACTION

Differences between subgroups relating to gender identification are not included in the case study. Differences between subgroups relating to ethnic identification are not included in the case study. Differences between subgroups relating to clan identification are not included in the case study. Differences between subgroups relating to racial identification are not included in the case study. Differences between subgroups relating to religious identification are not included in the case study. Differences between subgroups relating to languages spoken does not exist (highly confident). Differences between subgroups relating to general cultural views of the resource system and its use are not included in the case study. Differences between subgroups relating to any problems that affect communication are not included in the case study.

The general manner in which appropriators related to one another during this study is a relatively positive, reciprocal manner -- the presumption was made that long-term relationships are involved and positive actions are undertaken without a specific expectation of return (educated guess).

POSITIONS AND PARTICIPANTS

At the end of the period studied there was no information coded to indicate whether or not the position of non-appropriator (individuals prevented from using the resource) existed. At the beginning of the period there was a general estimate of some undocumented number appropriators. There was a general estimate of some undocumented number appropriators at the end of the period. A general estimate of the number of participants in the team appropriation process was Less than 25, at the beginning of the period (inferred). A general estimate of the number of participants in the team appropriation process was 201-500, at the end of the period (confident). The "official" position of monitor (apart from the willingness of all appropriators to monitor) does exist, and monitors are employees of an external governmental authority. This position monitors rules devised by regional collective choice processes (column 2 of the rules form).

The case study did not include information regarding whether or not the appropriators monitor the appropriation activities of each other apart from the monitoring of any "official" guards. The general estimate for the number of official monitors on duty at one time during peak hours was not included in this case study. The study did not indicate how many of the monitors were full-time.

NUMBER AND RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SUBGROUPS

There will be 2 subgroup form(s) completed in relation to this operational level form. The ID number(s) of the subgroup(s) coded are as follows: 100.1 - 101.1 - -2 - -2

Subgroups 100.1 and 101.1 differ in exposure to variations in supply and in levels of dependency on the units withdrawn from this resource.

Subgroups 100.1 and 101.1 do not differ in legal rights to appropriate units, in withdrawal rates from the resource, and in the way they use the appropriation units.

EVALUATION OF RESULTS

The study did not indicate whether or not there are appropriators who were consistently disadvantaged in this period. The study did not indicate whether or not the relatively worst off appropriators have or have not been cut out of their benefits from this resource or substantially harmed.

AUTHOR'S EVALUATION AND CAUSAL ASSUMPTIONS

In this coding form the author focuses on the readers' concept of results and the evaluation of results (inferred).

During this time period the scallop fishery began to recover because effort was withdrawn from it and applied to the Lakes Entrance scallop fishery. The author discusses withdrawals per unit of effort based on -1

SUBGROUP:

Participants:

This appropriation group are the fishers who hold licenses to both Port Phillip Bay and to Lakes Entrance scallop fisheries. The criteria for who is a member is well defined (highly confident). . .

The following statements characterize the composition of this subgroup's population with respect to variables that may affect the capacity to communicate effectively:

There is no difference in composition with regard to languages spoken (highly confident). The language spoken by most members of the subgroup is English.

The appropriation process is organized as a team process consisting of 56 groups.

Legal Rights:

Members of this subgroup have de jure rights of access (highly confident). The right to withdraw is held by this subgroup de jure (highly confident). Rights to participate in management of this resource are not held either de facto nor de jure (highly confident). Exlusion from use of the entire resource is not exercised either de facto nor de jure (highly confident). The separable right of transfer to the flow of units from this resource is not held either by de jure nor de facto (educated guess). The separable rights to exercise transfer to shares of this appropriation resource, or closely related production and/or distribution resources are neither held de jure nor de facto (educated guess).

Stakes and Resources:

The length of time this subgroup has regularly appropriated from this resource is 11 through 25 years (inferred). Around 91%-100% of this subgroup work a substantial amount of time in activities not associated with appropriation from this resource (highly confident). The proportion of this subgroup that currently appropriates similar units from other resources is 91%-100% (highly confident). Capital is owned by 91%-100% of this subgroup (educated guess). Low cost alternatives for the supply unit are available (highly confident).

Potential Actions and Levels of Control:

Considering that there are multiple subgroups using this resource, most of the appropriators withdraw units where the flow of units first enters into the resource (i.e. headenders) (inferred). A noticeable impact on the balance of the quantity of units withdrawn and the number of units available in this resource would occur in a drastic reduction of this subgroup's appropriation activities (inferred). Keeping in mind the physically available levels of withdrawal that are possible from this resource, the following shows the extent to which rules concerning different aspects of withdrawal constrain appropriation: technological rules heavily constrain (highly confident), time limits which limit the range of choice heavily constrain (highly confident), quantity rules cause unknown contraints, marginal units, or units obtained by increasing levels of appropriation, cause unknown contraints.

Technology:

The appropriative power of the technology used threatens the balance between units withdrawn and units available even if no new users are added (ambiguous).

Strategies Adopted:

At the beginning of the period the rate of unit withdrawals was increasing (ambiguous). At the end of the period the rate of unit withdrawals was constant (educated guess). Members have access to an alternative source of supply (highly confident).

Subgroup Results:

SUBGROUP:

Participants:

This appropriation group are the fishers who hold licenses only to Port Phillip Bay scallop fisheries. The criteria for who is a member is well defined. . .

The following statements characterize the composition of this subgroup's population with respect to variables that may affect the capacity to communicate effectively:

There is no difference in composition with regard to languages spoken (highly confident). The language spoken by most members of the subgroup is English.

The appropriation process is organized as a team process consisting of 23 groups.

Legal Rights:

Members of this subgroup have de jure rights of access (highly confident). The right to withdraw is held by this subgroup de jure (highly confident). Rights to participate in management of this resource are not held either de facto nor de jure (highly confident). Exlusion from use of the entire resource is not exercised either de facto nor de jure (highly confident). Members of this subgroup cannot exercise the right to decide who can be excluded from particular zones within the resource either de facto nor de jure. (highly confident). The separable right of transfer to the flow of units from this resource is not held either by de jure nor de facto (educated guess). The separable rights to exercise transfer to shares of this appropriation resource, or closely related production and/or distribution resources are neither held de jure nor de facto (educated guess).

Stakes and Resources:

The length of time this subgroup has regularly appropriated from this resource is 11 through 25 years (inferred). The proportion of this subgroup that currently appropriates similar units from other resources is less than 10% (highly confident).

Potential Actions and Levels of Control:

Considering that there are multiple subgroups using this resource, most of the appropriators withdraw units where the flow of units first enters into the resource (i.e. headenders) (inferred). A noticeable impact on the balance of the quantity of units withdrawn and the number of units available in this resource would occur in a drastic reduction of this subgroup's appropriation activities (inferred). Keeping in mind the physically available levels of withdrawal that are possible from this resource, the following shows the extent to which rules concerning different aspects of withdrawal constrain appropriation: technological rules heavily constrain (highly confident), time limits which limit the range of choice heavily constrain (highly confident), quantity rules cause unknown contraints, marginal units, or units obtained by increasing levels of appropriation, cause unknown contraints.

Technology:

The appropriative power of the technology used threatens the balance between units withdrawn and units available even if no new users are added (ambiguous).

Strategies Adopted:

At the beginning of the period the rate of unit withdrawals was increasing (educated guess). At the end of the period the rate of unit withdrawals was constant (educated guess). Members do not have access to an alternative source of supply (highly confident).

Subgroup Results:

OPERATIONAL LEVEL:

TYPE OF SITUATION

The processes described in the related documents are primarily related to appropriation alone. The formal owner(s) of the resource discussed in this study is a regional government. The set of individuals who have rights to withdraw from this resource is well-defined. As of the beginning of this period, the owners are exercising (or attempting to exercise de jure) and effective in gaining closed access to this resource. Since the beginning of this period, the appropriators are not exercising, or attempting to exercise closed access to this resource.

EVENTS MARKING THE BEGINNING ACTION SITUATION

It is estimated that the operational level coded on this form ended in 0. The estimated duration of the patterns that are described in this form is 1 to 10 years. Throughout the duration there was change made primarily by local collective choice processes involving others besides the appropriators, in operational, collective, or consititutional rules. There was no change in resource size or structure. There was no new technology introduced to the system over the duration of the patterns coded on this form. There was no information included in the study to indicate whether or not there was a substantial external change in the value of the units appropriated. The quantity of units available did not change due to a change in appropriation patterns of other appropriators' withdrawals from the same production or distribution resource. There were no new groups starting to withdraw units from the appropriation resource. There was no recorded change to one or more variables internal to the operational level. The variables that changed were -2. The author the description of this case at this point in history.

CONDITIONS AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF PERIOD COVERED BY THIS FORM*

For biological resources at the beginning of this period, the balance between the quantity of units withdrawn and the number of units available was an extreme shortage (highly confident). For biological resources at the end of this period, the balance between the quantity of units withdrawn and the number of units available was apparently balanced (highly confident). For physical resources at the beginning of this period, the balance between the quantity of units withdrawn and the quantity of units needed, given the usual patterns of use for these units was an extreme shortage (highly confident). For physical resources at the end of the period the balance between the quantity of units withdrawn and the quantity of units needed, given the usual patterns of use for these units, was apparently balanced (highly confident).

The following includes the available statistics on the use of this resource at the beginning of the time period, followed by the end of the time period:

Tons of fish harvested per year at the beginning of the period: 165

It is not indicated whether or not the units were sexually mature at this size or age at the beginning of this period. It is not indicated whether or not the units were sexually mature at this size or age at the end of this period.

*In fisheries and other biological systems, this is the maximum sustainable number of units. In irrigation, this refers to the optimal water requirements of the crops in the established fields served by this system.

At the beginning of the period, the units were predominantly sold in local markets.

At the end of the period, the units were predominantly sold in local markets.

As of the beginning of the period, the quality of the units being withdrawn from the resource was poor. As of the end of the period, the quality of the units being withdrawn from the resource was high (educated guess). At the beginning of the period of the study, there was no information provided regarding whether or not there are problems of pollution in this or other resources, due to the way units are being appropriated. At the end of the period of the study, there was no information provided in the case study regarding whether or not there are problems of pollution in this or other resources due to the way units are appropriated. As of the beginning of the period, the extent of technical externalities resulting from the appropriation activities of participants from this resource was not indicated. As of the end of the period, the extent of technical externalities resulting from the appropriation activities of participants from this resource was not indicated. At the beginning of this study, the interference between the appropriation technology for this resource and the appropriation processes for other resources in this location had no effect on the appropriation resources. At the end of this study, the interference between the appropriation technology for this resource and the appropriation processes for other resources in this location had no effect on the appropriation resources. At the beginning of this study, holding all inputs constant there was no information included in the study regarding whether or not rent dissipation occurred with fewer appropriator teams and/or equipment. At the end of this study, holding all inputs constant there was no information included in the study regarding whether or not rent dissipation occurred with fewer appropriator teams and/or equipment. At the beginning of this period the appropriators shared moderate to high levels of mutual trust (e.g. oral promises given high credence) (inferred). At the end of the period the appropriators shared moderate to high levels of mutual trust (e.g. oral promises given high credence) (inferred). ## Unknown markup: Start ##By the end of this period no change had occurred in the property rights regime related to the appropriation resource (inferred). At the end of this period the owners were exercising, or attempting to exercise, de jure and effective closed access to this resource (inferred). At the end of the period the appropriators were not exercising, nor attempting to exercise, closed access to this resource (confident).

INFORMATION LEVELS

There is no information in the study to indicate the availability of maps or charts of the appropration resource for use by the appropriators. Maps and/or charts of the appropriation resource do not differ from the production and distribution resource (inferred). The appropriators of this resource can be seen by each other while withdrawing and delivering units (confident). No documentation was included in the study regarding whether or not the appropriators of this resource are in radio communication with each other while appropriating from the resource. There are actions being taken, by appropriators or officials, to generate information about the condition of the resource (inferred). There are always records of the withdrawals from this resource kept in a systematic way (educated guess). There was no information in the study about whether or not there are records of the physical factors which directly affected the resource kept in a systematic way. There was no information in the study about whether or not there are records of the appropriators' contributions to monitoring of the resource kept in a systematic way. Records are kept in a language accessible to most of the appropriators (inferred). The keepers of these records are officials at some level (inferred). The case study did not indicate whether or not these records are available for inspection by appropriators. The study did not indicate whether or not there are arenas being used for the exchange of information about conditions of the resource. The appropriators have an intimate knowledge of the characteristics of this resource (inferred).

POTENTIAL ACTIONS AND LEVELS OF CONTROL

The quality or quantity of the units available to the appropriators are not adversely affected by the strategies of prior appropriators, because there are no prior appropriators (inferred). This study did not include information on whether or not there are problems of pollution resulting from activities of others who are not appropriators of this resource or inhabitants of this location (e.g. acid rain, sewage disposal). The number of markets in which this resource is sold was not included in the case study. The study does not indicate whether or not there was an insurance mechanism available to the appropriators related to variability of income from the resource.

PATTERNS OF INTERACTION

Differences between subgroups relating to gender identification are not included in the case study. Differences between subgroups relating to ethnic identification are not included in the case study. Differences between subgroups relating to clan identification are not included in the case study. Differences between subgroups relating to racial identification are not included in the case study. Differences between subgroups relating to religious identification are not included in the case study. Differences between subgroups relating to languages spoken does not exist (highly confident). Differences between subgroups relating to general cultural views of the resource system and its use are not included in the case study. Differences between subgroups relating to any problems that affect communication are not included in the case study.

The general manner in which appropriators related to one another during this study is a relatively positive, reciprocal manner -- the presumption was made that long-term relationships are involved and positive actions are undertaken without a specific expectation of return (educated guess).

POSITIONS AND PARTICIPANTS

At the end of the period studied there was no information coded to indicate whether or not the position of non-appropriator (individuals prevented from using the resource) existed. At the beginning of the period there was a general estimate of some undocumented number appropriators. There was a general estimate of some undocumented number appropriators at the end of the period. A general estimate of the number of participants in the team appropriation process was Less than 25, at the beginning of the period (inferred). A general estimate of the number of participants in the team appropriation process was 201-500, at the end of the period (confident). The "official" position of monitor (apart from the willingness of all appropriators to monitor) does exist, and monitors are employees of an external governmental authority. This position monitors rules devised by regional collective choice processes (column 2 of the rules form).

The case study did not include information regarding whether or not the appropriators monitor the appropriation activities of each other apart from the monitoring of any "official" guards. The general estimate for the number of official monitors on duty at one time during peak hours was not included in this case study. The study did not indicate how many of the monitors were full-time.

NUMBER AND RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SUBGROUPS

There will be 2 subgroup form(s) completed in relation to this operational level form. The ID number(s) of the subgroup(s) coded are as follows: 100.1 - 101.1 - -2 - -2

Subgroups 100.1 and 101.1 differ in exposure to variations in supply and in levels of dependency on the units withdrawn from this resource.

Subgroups 100.1 and 101.1 do not differ in legal rights to appropriate units, in withdrawal rates from the resource, and in the way they use the appropriation units.

EVALUATION OF RESULTS

The study did not indicate whether or not there are appropriators who were consistently disadvantaged in this period. The study did not indicate whether or not the relatively worst off appropriators have or have not been cut out of their benefits from this resource or substantially harmed.

AUTHOR'S EVALUATION AND CAUSAL ASSUMPTIONS

In this coding form the author focuses on the readers' concept of results and the evaluation of results (inferred).

During this time period the scallop fishery began to recover because effort was withdrawn from it and applied to the Lakes Entrance scallop fishery. The author discusses withdrawals per unit of effort based on -1

SUBGROUP:

Participants:

This appropriation group are the fishers who hold licenses to both Port Phillip Bay and to Lakes Entrance scallop fisheries. The criteria for who is a member is well defined (highly confident). . .

The following statements characterize the composition of this subgroup's population with respect to variables that may affect the capacity to communicate effectively:

There is no difference in composition with regard to languages spoken (highly confident). The language spoken by most members of the subgroup is English.

The appropriation process is organized as a team process consisting of 56 groups.

Legal Rights:

Members of this subgroup have de jure rights of access (highly confident). The right to withdraw is held by this subgroup de jure (highly confident). Rights to participate in management of this resource are not held either de facto nor de jure (highly confident). Exlusion from use of the entire resource is not exercised either de facto nor de jure (highly confident). The separable right of transfer to the flow of units from this resource is not held either by de jure nor de facto (educated guess). The separable rights to exercise transfer to shares of this appropriation resource, or closely related production and/or distribution resources are neither held de jure nor de facto (educated guess).

Stakes and Resources:

The length of time this subgroup has regularly appropriated from this resource is 11 through 25 years (inferred). Around 91%-100% of this subgroup work a substantial amount of time in activities not associated with appropriation from this resource (highly confident). The proportion of this subgroup that currently appropriates similar units from other resources is 91%-100% (highly confident). Capital is owned by 91%-100% of this subgroup (educated guess). Low cost alternatives for the supply unit are available (highly confident).

Potential Actions and Levels of Control:

Considering that there are multiple subgroups using this resource, most of the appropriators withdraw units where the flow of units first enters into the resource (i.e. headenders) (inferred). A noticeable impact on the balance of the quantity of units withdrawn and the number of units available in this resource would occur in a drastic reduction of this subgroup's appropriation activities (inferred). Keeping in mind the physically available levels of withdrawal that are possible from this resource, the following shows the extent to which rules concerning different aspects of withdrawal constrain appropriation: technological rules heavily constrain (highly confident), time limits which limit the range of choice heavily constrain (highly confident), quantity rules cause unknown contraints, marginal units, or units obtained by increasing levels of appropriation, cause unknown contraints.

Technology:

The appropriative power of the technology used threatens the balance between units withdrawn and units available even if no new users are added (ambiguous).

Strategies Adopted:

Members have access to an alternative source of supply (highly confident).

Subgroup Results:

SUBGROUP:

Participants:

This appropriation group are the fishers who hold licenses only to Port Phillip Bay scallop fisheries. The criteria for who is a member is well defined. . .

The following statements characterize the composition of this subgroup's population with respect to variables that may affect the capacity to communicate effectively:

There is no difference in composition with regard to languages spoken (highly confident). The language spoken by most members of the subgroup is English.

The appropriation process is organized as a team process consisting of 23 groups.

Legal Rights:

Members of this subgroup have de jure rights of access (highly confident). The right to withdraw is held by this subgroup de jure (highly confident). Rights to participate in management of this resource are not held either de facto nor de jure (highly confident). Exlusion from use of the entire resource is not exercised either de facto nor de jure (highly confident). Members of this subgroup cannot exercise the right to decide who can be excluded from particular zones within the resource either de facto nor de jure. (highly confident). The separable right of transfer to the flow of units from this resource is not held either by de jure nor de facto (educated guess). The separable rights to exercise transfer to shares of this appropriation resource, or closely related production and/or distribution resources are neither held de jure nor de facto (educated guess).

Stakes and Resources:

The length of time this subgroup has regularly appropriated from this resource is 11 through 25 years (inferred). The proportion of this subgroup that currently appropriates similar units from other resources is less than 10% (highly confident).

Potential Actions and Levels of Control:

Considering that there are multiple subgroups using this resource, most of the appropriators withdraw units where the flow of units first enters into the resource (i.e. headenders) (inferred). A noticeable impact on the balance of the quantity of units withdrawn and the number of units available in this resource would occur in a drastic reduction of this subgroup's appropriation activities (inferred). Keeping in mind the physically available levels of withdrawal that are possible from this resource, the following shows the extent to which rules concerning different aspects of withdrawal constrain appropriation: technological rules heavily constrain (highly confident), time limits which limit the range of choice heavily constrain (highly confident), quantity rules cause unknown contraints, marginal units, or units obtained by increasing levels of appropriation, cause unknown contraints.

Technology:

The appropriative power of the technology used threatens the balance between units withdrawn and units available even if no new users are added (ambiguous).

Strategies Adopted:

Members do not have access to an alternative source of supply (highly confident).

Subgroup Results:

OPERATIONAL LEVEL:

TYPE OF SITUATION

The processes described in the related documents are primarily related to appropriation alone. The formal owner(s) of the resource discussed in this study is a regional government. The set of individuals who have rights to withdraw from this resource is well-defined. As of the beginning of this period, the owners are exercising (or attempting to exercise de jure) and effective in gaining closed access to this resource. Since the beginning of this period, the appropriators are not exercising, or attempting to exercise closed access to this resource.

EVENTS MARKING THE BEGINNING ACTION SITUATION

It is estimated that the operational level coded on this form ended in 1985. The estimated duration of the patterns that are described in this form is 1 to 10 years. Throughout the duration there was change made primarily by an external authority in operational, collective, or consititutional rules. There was no change in resource size or structure. There was no new technology introduced to the system over the duration of the patterns coded on this form. There was no information included in the study to indicate whether or not there was a substantial external change in the value of the units appropriated. The quantity of units available did not change due to a change in appropriation patterns of other appropriators' withdrawals from the same production or distribution resource. There were no new groups starting to withdraw units from the appropriation resource. There was no recorded change to one or more variables internal to the operational level. The variables that changed were -2. The author the description of this case at this point in history.

CONDITIONS AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF PERIOD COVERED BY THIS FORM*

For biological resources at the beginning of this period, the balance between the quantity of units withdrawn and the number of units available was an extreme shortage (highly confident). For biological resources at the end of this period, the balance between the quantity of units withdrawn and the number of units available was apparently balanced (highly confident). For physical resources at the beginning of this period, the balance between the quantity of units withdrawn and the quantity of units needed, given the usual patterns of use for these units was an extreme shortage (highly confident). For physical resources at the end of the period the balance between the quantity of units withdrawn and the quantity of units needed, given the usual patterns of use for these units, was apparently balanced (highly confident).

The following includes the available statistics on the use of this resource at the beginning of the time period, followed by the end of the time period:

Tons of fish harvested per year at the beginning of the period: 165

It is not indicated whether or not the units were sexually mature at this size or age at the beginning of this period. It is not indicated whether or not the units were sexually mature at this size or age at the end of this period.

*In fisheries and other biological systems, this is the maximum sustainable number of units. In irrigation, this refers to the optimal water requirements of the crops in the established fields served by this system.

At the beginning of the period, the units were predominantly sold in local markets.

At the end of the period, the units were predominantly sold in local markets.

As of the beginning of the period, the quality of the units being withdrawn from the resource was poor. As of the end of the period, the quality of the units being withdrawn from the resource was high (educated guess). At the beginning of the period of the study, there was no information provided regarding whether or not there are problems of pollution in this or other resources, due to the way units are being appropriated. At the end of the period of the study, there was no information provided in the case study regarding whether or not there are problems of pollution in this or other resources due to the way units are appropriated. As of the beginning of the period, the extent of technical externalities resulting from the appropriation activities of participants from this resource was not indicated. As of the end of the period, the extent of technical externalities resulting from the appropriation activities of participants from this resource was not indicated. At the beginning of this study, the interference between the appropriation technology for this resource and the appropriation processes for other resources in this location had no effect on the appropriation resources. At the end of this study, the interference between the appropriation technology for this resource and the appropriation processes for other resources in this location had no effect on the appropriation resources. At the beginning of this study, holding all inputs constant there was no information included in the study regarding whether or not rent dissipation occurred with fewer appropriator teams and/or equipment. At the end of this study, holding all inputs constant there was no information included in the study regarding whether or not rent dissipation occurred with fewer appropriator teams and/or equipment. At the beginning of this period the appropriators shared moderate to high levels of mutual trust (e.g. oral promises given high credence) (inferred). At the end of the period the appropriators shared moderate to high levels of mutual trust (e.g. oral promises given high credence) (inferred). ## Unknown markup: Start ##By the end of this period no change had occurred in the property rights regime related to the appropriation resource (inferred). At the end of this period the owners were exercising, or attempting to exercise, de jure and effective closed access to this resource (inferred). At the end of the period the appropriators were not exercising, nor attempting to exercise, closed access to this resource (confident).

INFORMATION LEVELS

There is no information in the study to indicate the availability of maps or charts of the appropration resource for use by the appropriators. Maps and/or charts of the appropriation resource do not differ from the production and distribution resource (inferred). The appropriators of this resource can be seen by each other while withdrawing and delivering units (confident). No documentation was included in the study regarding whether or not the appropriators of this resource are in radio communication with each other while appropriating from the resource. There are actions being taken, by appropriators or officials, to generate information about the condition of the resource (inferred). There are always records of the withdrawals from this resource kept in a systematic way (educated guess). There was no information in the study about whether or not there are records of the physical factors which directly affected the resource kept in a systematic way. There was no information in the study about whether or not there are records of the appropriators' contributions to monitoring of the resource kept in a systematic way. Records are kept in a language accessible to most of the appropriators (inferred). The keepers of these records are officials at some level (inferred). The case study did not indicate whether or not these records are available for inspection by appropriators. The study did not indicate whether or not there are arenas being used for the exchange of information about conditions of the resource. The appropriators have an intimate knowledge of the characteristics of this resource (inferred).

POTENTIAL ACTIONS AND LEVELS OF CONTROL

The quality or quantity of the units available to the appropriators are not adversely affected by the strategies of prior appropriators, because there are no prior appropriators (inferred). This study did not include information on whether or not there are problems of pollution resulting from activities of others who are not appropriators of this resource or inhabitants of this location (e.g. acid rain, sewage disposal). The number of markets in which this resource is sold was not included in the case study. The study does not indicate whether or not there was an insurance mechanism available to the appropriators related to variability of income from the resource.

PATTERNS OF INTERACTION

Differences between subgroups relating to gender identification are not included in the case study. Differences between subgroups relating to ethnic identification are not included in the case study. Differences between subgroups relating to clan identification are not included in the case study. Differences between subgroups relating to racial identification are not included in the case study. Differences between subgroups relating to religious identification are not included in the case study. Differences between subgroups relating to languages spoken does not exist (highly confident). Differences between subgroups relating to general cultural views of the resource system and its use are not included in the case study. Differences between subgroups relating to any problems that affect communication are not included in the case study.

The general manner in which appropriators related to one another during this study is a relatively positive, reciprocal manner -- the presumption was made that long-term relationships are involved and positive actions are undertaken without a specific expectation of return (educated guess).

POSITIONS AND PARTICIPANTS

At the end of the period studied there was no information coded to indicate whether or not the position of non-appropriator (individuals prevented from using the resource) existed. At the beginning of the period there was a general estimate of some undocumented number appropriators. There was a general estimate of some undocumented number appropriators at the end of the period. A general estimate of the number of participants in the team appropriation process was Less than 25, at the beginning of the period (inferred). A general estimate of the number of participants in the team appropriation process was 201-500, at the end of the period (confident). The "official" position of monitor (apart from the willingness of all appropriators to monitor) does exist, and monitors are employees of an external governmental authority. This position monitors rules devised by regional collective choice processes (column 2 of the rules form).

The case study did not include information regarding whether or not the appropriators monitor the appropriation activities of each other apart from the monitoring of any "official" guards. The general estimate for the number of official monitors on duty at one time during peak hours was not included in this case study. The study did not indicate how many of the monitors were full-time.

NUMBER AND RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SUBGROUPS

There will be 2 subgroup form(s) completed in relation to this operational level form. The ID number(s) of the subgroup(s) coded are as follows: 100.1 - 101.1 - -2 - -2

Subgroups 100.1 and 101.1 differ in exposure to variations in supply and in levels of dependency on the units withdrawn from this resource.

Subgroups 100.1 and 101.1 do not differ in legal rights to appropriate units, in withdrawal rates from the resource, and in the way they use the appropriation units.

EVALUATION OF RESULTS

The study did not indicate whether or not there are appropriators who were consistently disadvantaged in this period. The study did not indicate whether or not the relatively worst off appropriators have or have not been cut out of their benefits from this resource or substantially harmed.

AUTHOR'S EVALUATION AND CAUSAL ASSUMPTIONS

In this coding form the author focuses on the readers' concept of results and the evaluation of results (inferred).

During this time period the scallop fishery began to recover because effort was withdrawn from it and applied to the Lakes Entrance scallop fishery. The author discusses withdrawals per unit of effort based on -1

SUBGROUP:

Participants:

This appropriation group are the fishers who hold licenses to both Port Phillip Bay and to Lakes Entrance scallop fisheries. The criteria for who is a member is well defined (highly confident). . .

The following statements characterize the composition of this subgroup's population with respect to variables that may affect the capacity to communicate effectively:

There is no difference in composition with regard to languages spoken (highly confident). The language spoken by most members of the subgroup is English.

The appropriation process is organized as a team process consisting of 56 groups.

Legal Rights:

Members of this subgroup have de jure rights of access (highly confident). The right to withdraw is held by this subgroup de jure (highly confident). Rights to participate in management of this resource are not held either de facto nor de jure (highly confident). Exlusion from use of the entire resource is not exercised either de facto nor de jure (highly confident). The separable right of transfer to the flow of units from this resource is not held either by de jure nor de facto (educated guess). The separable rights to exercise transfer to shares of this appropriation resource, or closely related production and/or distribution resources are neither held de jure nor de facto (educated guess).

Stakes and Resources:

The length of time this subgroup has regularly appropriated from this resource is 11 through 25 years (inferred). Around 91%-100% of this subgroup work a substantial amount of time in activities not associated with appropriation from this resource (highly confident). The proportion of this subgroup that currently appropriates similar units from other resources is 91%-100% (highly confident). Capital is owned by 91%-100% of this subgroup (educated guess). Low cost alternatives for the supply unit are available (highly confident).

Potential Actions and Levels of Control:

Considering that there are multiple subgroups using this resource, most of the appropriators withdraw units where the flow of units first enters into the resource (i.e. headenders) (inferred). A noticeable impact on the balance of the quantity of units withdrawn and the number of units available in this resource would occur in a drastic reduction of this subgroup's appropriation activities (inferred). Keeping in mind the physically available levels of withdrawal that are possible from this resource, the following shows the extent to which rules concerning different aspects of withdrawal constrain appropriation: technological rules heavily constrain (highly confident), time limits which limit the range of choice heavily constrain (highly confident), quantity rules cause unknown contraints, marginal units, or units obtained by increasing levels of appropriation, cause unknown contraints.

Technology:

The appropriative power of the technology used threatens the balance between units withdrawn and units available even if no new users are added (ambiguous).

Strategies Adopted:

Members have access to an alternative source of supply (highly confident).

Subgroup Results:

SUBGROUP:

Participants:

This appropriation group are the fishers who hold licenses only to Port Phillip Bay scallop fisheries. The criteria for who is a member is well defined. . .

The following statements characterize the composition of this subgroup's population with respect to variables that may affect the capacity to communicate effectively:

There is no difference in composition with regard to languages spoken (highly confident). The language spoken by most members of the subgroup is English.

The appropriation process is organized as a team process consisting of 23 groups.

Legal Rights:

Members of this subgroup have de jure rights of access (highly confident). The right to withdraw is held by this subgroup de jure (highly confident). Rights to participate in management of this resource are not held either de facto nor de jure (highly confident). Exlusion from use of the entire resource is not exercised either de facto nor de jure (highly confident). Members of this subgroup cannot exercise the right to decide who can be excluded from particular zones within the resource either de facto nor de jure. (highly confident). The separable right of transfer to the flow of units from this resource is not held either by de jure nor de facto (educated guess). The separable rights to exercise transfer to shares of this appropriation resource, or closely related production and/or distribution resources are neither held de jure nor de facto (educated guess).

Stakes and Resources:

The length of time this subgroup has regularly appropriated from this resource is 11 through 25 years (inferred). The proportion of this subgroup that currently appropriates similar units from other resources is less than 10% (highly confident).

Potential Actions and Levels of Control:

Considering that there are multiple subgroups using this resource, most of the appropriators withdraw units where the flow of units first enters into the resource (i.e. headenders) (inferred). A noticeable impact on the balance of the quantity of units withdrawn and the number of units available in this resource would occur in a drastic reduction of this subgroup's appropriation activities (inferred). Keeping in mind the physically available levels of withdrawal that are possible from this resource, the following shows the extent to which rules concerning different aspects of withdrawal constrain appropriation: technological rules heavily constrain (highly confident), time limits which limit the range of choice heavily constrain (highly confident), quantity rules cause unknown contraints, marginal units, or units obtained by increasing levels of appropriation, cause unknown contraints.

Technology:

The appropriative power of the technology used threatens the balance between units withdrawn and units available even if no new users are added (ambiguous).

Strategies Adopted:

Members do not have access to an alternative source of supply (highly confident).

Subgroup Results:

RESOURCE:

The resource appropriated from Port Phillip Bay is scallops. Port Phillip Bay is located on the southern coast of Victoria Province, Australia. It empties into the Bass Strait. Scallops are located at 4 fathoms or deeper.

OPERATIONAL RULES:

Concerning national collective choice relating to the resource, the author provides NO information about operational level rules as devised by national collective choice mechanism. Concerning regional collective choice, the author provides a few detailed references to operational level rules as devised by regional collective choice mechanism which have been coded below..

With regard to local collective choice, there is a local level of government or organization of appropriators, but it does not exercise jurisdiction in relation to the type of resource appropriated by this subgroup.

Boundary Rules

The following rules define the requirements that must be met before individuals are eligible to harvest or withdraw units from the appropriation resource.

The local level(s) of government or organization had no jurisdiction over the resource.

A rule exists requiring citizenship of a country. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s).

A rule exists requiring use of a particular technology. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s).

A rule exists requiring an appropriator to obtain a license for entry or for equipment in order to appropriate. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s).

An entry fee or license is required or permitted and the upper limit of licenses issued is likely to lead to the exclusion of some potential appropriators.

The sum of the fees and licenses is moderate given the resources of most of the appropriators.

When an entry fee or license is required or permitted, the sum is relatively low given the benefits that can be obtained from withdrawing units from this resource.

Within one generation of potential resource appropriators, entry rights can be given, leased, rented, sold or transferred to others.

Authority and Scope Rules

The default conditions for both authority and scope rules do not apply.

The following paragraphs include information on rules of 1 cycle(s).

Authority Rules:

The local level(s) of government or organization had no jurisdiction over the resource.

There is a rule requiring withdrawal at a fixed time slot, set annually/periodically by an external public official. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s), and is part of the most restrictive, regularly adopted/used set of rules.

There is a rule requiring withdrawal at specific locations or spots, based on the type of license issued by governing authority. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s), and is part of the most restrictive, regularly adopted/used set of rules.

There is a rule forbidding withdrawal whenever and wherever desired, based on the type of license issued by governing authority. This rule is enforced at the regional level(s), and is part of the most restrictive, regularly adopted/used set of rules.

There is a rule requiring withdrawal units of a certain minimum size, set annually/periodically by an external public official. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s), and is part of the most restrictive, regularly adopted/used set of rules.

The authority and scope rules do not apply to whether or not certain subgroups received substantially unequal privileges, because there is only one subgroup.

Scope Rules:

The local level(s) of government or organization had no jurisdiction over the resource.

Information Rules

There exists a rule requiring recording of the number of units withdrawn. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s).

This information was recorded by a regional administrative body.

There exists a rule requiring recording of the quality of units withdrawn. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s).

This information was recorded by a regional administrative body.

There exists a rule requiring recording of the rights and duties of the appropriators. This rule is enforced at the regional level(s).

This information was recorded by a regional administrative body.

Payoff Rules

The following percentages indicate the percentages assigned to individual positions. If more than one percentage is listed per position, the individual percentages refer to the different arrangements existing within the operational rules.

Owner(s) (non-operator(s)) of primary appropriation equipment:

0%; 0%; 0%

Owner(s) - operators(s) of primary appropriation equipment:

0%; 0%; 0%

Owner(s) (non-operator(s)) of supplementary appropriation equipment:

0%; 0%; 0%

Owner(s) - operator(s) of supplementary appropriation equipment:

0%; 0%; 0%

Crew with special assets (including non-owner captain):

0%; 0%; 0%

Regular crew (each):

0%; 0%; 0%

Other:

0%; 0%; 0%

Aggregation Rules

Overall Questions About Rules Configuration

The general framework of the rules-in-use has governed the activities of this subgroup for 11 to 25 years.

OPERATIONAL RULES:

Concerning national collective choice relating to the resource, the author provides NO information about operational level rules as devised by national collective choice mechanism. Concerning regional collective choice, the author provides a few detailed references to operational level rules as devised by regional collective choice mechanism which have been coded below..

With regard to local collective choice, there is a local level of government or organization of appropriators, but it does not exercise jurisdiction in relation to the type of resource appropriated by this subgroup.

Boundary Rules

The following rules define the requirements that must be met before individuals are eligible to harvest or withdraw units from the appropriation resource.

The local level(s) of government or organization had no jurisdiction over the resource.

A rule exists requiring citizenship of a country. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s).

A rule exists requiring use of a particular technology. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s).

A rule exists requiring an appropriator to obtain a license for entry or for equipment in order to appropriate. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s).

An entry fee or license is required or permitted and the upper limit of licenses issued is likely to lead to the exclusion of some potential appropriators.

The sum of the fees and licenses is moderate given the resources of most of the appropriators.

When an entry fee or license is required or permitted, the sum is relatively low given the benefits that can be obtained from withdrawing units from this resource.

Within one generation of potential resource appropriators, entry rights can be given, leased, rented, sold or transferred to others.

The boundary rules do not assign substantially unequal privileges to some subgroups over others.

Authority and Scope Rules

The default conditions for both authority and scope rules do not apply.

The following paragraphs include information on rules of 1 cycle(s).

Authority Rules:

The local level(s) of government or organization had no jurisdiction over the resource.

There is a rule requiring withdrawal at a fixed time slot, set annually/periodically by an external public official. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s), and is part of the most restrictive, regularly adopted/used set of rules.

There is a rule requiring withdrawal at specific locations or spots, based on the type of license issued by governing authority. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s), and is part of the most restrictive, regularly adopted/used set of rules.

There is a rule forbidding withdrawal whenever and wherever desired, based on the type of license issued by governing authority. This rule is enforced at the regional level(s), and is part of the most restrictive, regularly adopted/used set of rules.

There is a rule requiring withdrawal units of a certain minimum size, set annually/periodically by an external public official. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s), and is part of the most restrictive, regularly adopted/used set of rules.

The authority and scope rules do not assign substantially unequal privileges to some subgroups above others.

Scope Rules:

The local level(s) of government or organization had no jurisdiction over the resource.

Authority and scope rules do not assign substantially unequal duties among subgroups.

Information Rules

There exists a rule requiring recording of the number of units withdrawn. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s).

This information was recorded by a regional administrative body.

There exists a rule requiring recording of the quality of units withdrawn. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s).

This information was recorded by a regional administrative body.

There exists a rule requiring recording of the rights and duties of the appropriators. This rule is enforced at the regional level(s).

This information was recorded by a regional administrative body.

Payoff Rules

The following percentages indicate the percentages assigned to individual positions. If more than one percentage is listed per position, the individual percentages refer to the different arrangements existing within the operational rules.

Owner(s) (non-operator(s)) of primary appropriation equipment:

0%; 0%; 0%

Owner(s) - operators(s) of primary appropriation equipment:

0%; 0%; 0%

Owner(s) (non-operator(s)) of supplementary appropriation equipment:

0%; 0%; 0%

Owner(s) - operator(s) of supplementary appropriation equipment:

0%; 0%; 0%

Crew with special assets (including non-owner captain):

0%; 0%; 0%

Regular crew (each):

0%; 0%; 0%

Other:

0%; 0%; 0%

Aggregation Rules

Overall Questions About Rules Configuration

The general framework of the rules-in-use has governed the activities of this subgroup for 11 to 25 years.

OPERATIONAL RULES:

Concerning national collective choice relating to the resource, the author provides NO information about operational level rules as devised by national collective choice mechanism. Concerning regional collective choice, the author provides a few detailed references to operational level rules as devised by regional collective choice mechanism which have been coded below..

With regard to local collective choice, there is a local level of government or organization of appropriators, but it does not exercise jurisdiction in relation to the type of resource appropriated by this subgroup.

Boundary Rules

The following rules define the requirements that must be met before individuals are eligible to harvest or withdraw units from the appropriation resource.

The local level(s) of government or organization had no jurisdiction over the resource.

A rule exists requiring citizenship of a country. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s).

A rule exists requiring use of a particular technology. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s).

A rule exists requiring an appropriator to obtain a license for entry or for equipment in order to appropriate. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s).

An entry fee or license is required or permitted and the upper limit of licenses issued is likely to lead to the exclusion of some potential appropriators.

The sum of the fees and licenses is moderate given the resources of most of the appropriators.

When an entry fee or license is required or permitted, the sum is relatively low given the benefits that can be obtained from withdrawing units from this resource.

Within one generation of potential resource appropriators, entry rights can be given, leased, rented, sold or transferred to others.

The boundary rules do not assign substantially unequal privileges to some subgroups over others.

Authority and Scope Rules

The default conditions for both authority and scope rules do not apply.

The following paragraphs include information on rules of 1 cycle(s).

Authority Rules:

The local level(s) of government or organization had no jurisdiction over the resource.

There is a rule requiring withdrawal up to a fixed number of units during a period, set annually/periodically by an external public official. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s), and is part of the most restrictive, regularly adopted/used set of rules.

There is a rule requiring withdrawal at a fixed time slot, set annually/periodically by an external public official. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s), and is part of the most restrictive, regularly adopted/used set of rules.

There is a rule requiring withdrawal at specific locations or spots, based on the type of license issued by governing authority. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s), and is part of the most restrictive, regularly adopted/used set of rules.

There is a rule forbidding withdrawal whenever and wherever desired, based on the type of license issued by governing authority. This rule is enforced at the regional level(s), and is part of the most restrictive, regularly adopted/used set of rules.

There is a rule requiring withdrawal units of a certain minimum size, set annually/periodically by an external public official. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s), and is part of the most restrictive, regularly adopted/used set of rules.

The authority and scope rules do not apply to whether or not certain subgroups received substantially unequal privileges, because there is only one subgroup.

Scope Rules:

The local level(s) of government or organization had no jurisdiction over the resource.

Information Rules

There exists a rule requiring recording of the number of units withdrawn. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s).

This information was recorded by a regional administrative body.

There exists a rule requiring recording of the quality of units withdrawn. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s).

This information was recorded by a regional administrative body.

There exists a rule requiring recording of the rights and duties of the appropriators. This rule is enforced at the regional level(s).

This information was recorded by a regional administrative body.

Payoff Rules

The following percentages indicate the percentages assigned to individual positions. If more than one percentage is listed per position, the individual percentages refer to the different arrangements existing within the operational rules.

Owner(s) (non-operator(s)) of primary appropriation equipment:

0%; 0%; 0%

Owner(s) - operators(s) of primary appropriation equipment:

0%; 0%; 0%

Owner(s) (non-operator(s)) of supplementary appropriation equipment:

0%; 0%; 0%

Owner(s) - operator(s) of supplementary appropriation equipment:

0%; 0%; 0%

Crew with special assets (including non-owner captain):

0%; 0%; 0%

Regular crew (each):

0%; 0%; 0%

Other:

0%; 0%; 0%

Aggregation Rules

Overall Questions About Rules Configuration

The general framework of the rules-in-use has governed the activities of this subgroup for 11 to 25 years.

OPERATIONAL RULES:

Concerning national collective choice relating to the resource, the author provides NO information about operational level rules as devised by national collective choice mechanism. Concerning regional collective choice, the author provides a few detailed references to operational level rules as devised by regional collective choice mechanism which have been coded below..

With regard to local collective choice, there is a local level of government or organization of appropriators, but it does not exercise jurisdiction in relation to the type of resource appropriated by this subgroup.

Boundary Rules

The following rules define the requirements that must be met before individuals are eligible to harvest or withdraw units from the appropriation resource.

The local level(s) of government or organization had no jurisdiction over the resource.

A rule exists requiring citizenship of a country. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s).

A rule exists requiring use of a particular technology. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s).

A rule exists requiring an appropriator to obtain a license for entry or for equipment in order to appropriate. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s).

An entry fee or license is required or permitted and the upper limit of licenses issued is likely to lead to the exclusion of some potential appropriators.

The sum of the fees and licenses is moderate given the resources of most of the appropriators.

When an entry fee or license is required or permitted, the sum is relatively low given the benefits that can be obtained from withdrawing units from this resource.

Within one generation of potential resource appropriators, entry rights can be given, leased, rented, sold or transferred to others.

The boundary rules do not assign substantially unequal privileges to some subgroups over others.

Authority and Scope Rules

The default conditions for both authority and scope rules do not apply.

The following paragraphs include information on rules of 1 cycle(s).

Authority Rules:

The local level(s) of government or organization had no jurisdiction over the resource.

There is a rule requiring withdrawal up to a fixed number of units during a period, set annually/periodically by an external public official. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s), and is part of the most restrictive, regularly adopted/used set of rules.

There is a rule requiring withdrawal at a fixed time slot, set annually/periodically by an external public official. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s), and is part of the most restrictive, regularly adopted/used set of rules.

There is a rule requiring withdrawal only during specific seasons, set annually/periodically by an external public official. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s), and is part of the most restrictive, regularly adopted/used set of rules.

There is a rule requiring withdrawal at specific locations or spots, based on the type of license issued by governing authority. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s), and is part of the most restrictive, regularly adopted/used set of rules.

There is a rule forbidding withdrawal whenever and wherever desired, based on the type of license issued by governing authority. This rule is enforced at the regional level(s), and is part of the most restrictive, regularly adopted/used set of rules.

The authority and scope rules do not apply to whether or not certain subgroups received substantially unequal privileges, because there is only one subgroup.

Scope Rules:

The local level(s) of government or organization had no jurisdiction over the resource.

Information Rules

There exists a rule requiring recording of the number of units withdrawn. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s).

This information was recorded by a regional administrative body.

There exists a rule requiring recording of the quality of units withdrawn. This rule is enforced at the regional and rules-in-use level(s).

This information was recorded by a regional administrative body.

There exists a rule requiring recording of the rights and duties of the appropriators. This rule is enforced at the regional level(s).

This information was recorded by a regional administrative body.

Payoff Rules

The following percentages indicate the percentages assigned to individual positions. If more than one percentage is listed per position, the individual percentages refer to the different arrangements existing within the operational rules.

Owner(s) (non-operator(s)) of primary appropriation equipment:

0%; 0%; 0%

Owner(s) - operators(s) of primary appropriation equipment:

0%; 0%; 0%

Owner(s) (non-operator(s)) of supplementary appropriation equipment:

0%; 0%; 0%

Owner(s) - operator(s) of supplementary appropriation equipment:

0%; 0%; 0%

Crew with special assets (including non-owner captain):

0%; 0%; 0%

Regular crew (each):

0%; 0%; 0%

Other:

0%; 0%; 0%

Aggregation Rules

Overall Questions About Rules Configuration

The general framework of the rules-in-use has governed the activities of this subgroup for 11 to 25 years.