- Resource System
- Coastal marine ecosystem
- Resource Units
- Scallops
The Lakes Entrance scallop fishery is located in Bass Strait outside the city of Lakes Entrance in eastern Victoria, Australia and as far south as Tasmania in depths of 10-30 fathoms . The original case, which was published in 1982, catalogs the management of both Lakes Entrance and nearby Port Phillip Bay fisheries following a decline in scallop stocks in the early 1970s. The shared resources relevant to the commons dilemma faced by the community include scallop stocks and their productivity (common pool). The action situation involved 90 fishermen. The natural infrastructure includes the ocean water, seabeds (fine silts to coarse grain sands), plankton, and other components of the marine food web. This case study is part of the original Common-Pool Resource (CPR) database.
A summary of the original CPR coding conducted in the 1980s by Edella Schlager and Shui Yan Tang at Indiana University and the original CPR report can be found under the CPR tab in the Institutional Analysis section below.
The resource appropriated from Lakes Entrance is scallops. The resource that was studied is located offshore of the town of Lakes Entrance in Bass Strait as far south as Tasmania, depths of 10-30 fathoms.
RESOURCE:
The resource appropriated from Lakes Entrance is scallops. The resource that was studied is located offshore of the town of Lakes Entrance in Bass Strait as far south as Tasmania, depths of 10-30 fathoms.
SCREENER:
Case: Lakes Entrance, 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 Lakes Entrance, 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 Lakes Entrance. 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 Lakes Entrance have a complete knowledge of its particulars. Furthermore, the authors have provided sufficient data to formulate a structured coding process.
The Lakes Entrance 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 a moderately abundant supply of biological and physical resources withdrawn compared to the number of units available. Appropriator teams for the resource are sometimes 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.*
The resource appropriated from Lakes Entrance is scallops. The resource that was studied is located offshore of the town of Lakes Entrance in Bass Strait as far south as Tasmania, depths of 10-30 fathoms.
SCREENER:
Case: Lakes Entrance, 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 Lakes Entrance, 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 Lakes Entrance. 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 Lakes Entrance have a complete knowledge of its particulars. Furthermore, the authors have provided sufficient data to formulate a structured coding process.
The Lakes Entrance 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 a moderately abundant supply of biological and physical resources withdrawn compared to the number of units available. Appropriator teams for the resource are sometimes 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 Lakes Entrance is scallops. It is produced biologically and is a renewable stationary unit. The resource that was studied is located offshore of the town of Lakes Entrance in Bass Strait as far south as Tasmania, depths of 10-30 fathoms.
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 (ambiguous). The quality and/or quantity of units is regularly better in some of the zones than in others (ambiguous). 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 (highly confident). There is considerable, and predictable variation over space in the availability of Scallops within the resource (inferred). 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 (inferred).
The bottom topography of Lakes Entrance is primarily sand (educated guess).
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 in 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
The resource appropriated from Lakes Entrance is scallops. It is produced biologically and is a renewable stationary unit. The resource that was studied is located offshore of the town of Lakes Entrance in Bass Strait as far south as Tasmania, depths of 10-30 fathoms.
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 (ambiguous). The quality and/or quantity of units is regularly better in some of the zones than in others (ambiguous). 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 (highly confident). There is considerable, and predictable variation over space in the availability of Scallops within the resource (inferred). 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 (inferred).
The bottom topography of Lakes Entrance is primarily sand (educated guess).
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 in 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 Lakes Entrance is scallops. The resource that was studied is located offshore of the town of Lakes Entrance in Bass Strait as far south as Tasmania, depths of 10-30 fathoms.
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 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 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 apparently balanced (educated guess). 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 apparently balanced (educated guess).
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: 320
Tons of fish harvested per year at the end of the period: 115
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 high (educated guess). 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 (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) (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 (highly confident). At the end of the period the appropriators were not exercising, nor attempting to exercise, closed access to this resource (highly 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 (highly confident). The appropriators of this resource can be seen by each other while withdrawing and delivering units (highly 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. Records are kept in a language accessible to most of the appropriators (ambiguous). 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 (highly confident). 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 (inferred).
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 101-200, at the beginning of the period (highly confident). A general estimate of the number of participants in the team appropriation process was 201-500, 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 (educated guess). This position monitors rules devised by regional collective choice processes (column 2 of the rules form) and rules-in-use.
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: 100.3 - 102.1 - -2 - -2
Subgroups 100.3 and 102.1 differ in levels of dependency on the units withdrawn from this resource.
Subgroups 100.3 and 102.1 do not differ in legal rights to appropriate units, in withdrawal rates from the resource, in exposure to variations in supply, 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.
Lakes Entrance is well managed, there are no indications of rent dissipation. The author discusses withdrawals per unit of effort based on Measure of effort is number of hauls times dredge width, divided by 100.
SUBGROUP:
Participants:
This appropriation group are the fishers who have a licence to fish Lakes Entrance scallop grounds only. 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 34 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 (highly confident). 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 (highly confident).
Stakes and Resources:
The length of time this subgroup has regularly appropriated from this resource is 1 through 10 years (highly confident). 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 (ambiguous). 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 limit rules cause unknown contraints, quantity limits which limit the range of choice heavily constrain (highly confident), and marginal units, or units obtained by increasing levels of appropriation, cause unknown contraints.
Technology:
The appropriative power of the technology used does not threaten the balance between units withdrawn and units available even if no new users are added (highly confident).
Strategies Adopted:
At the beginning of the period the rate of unit withdrawals was accelerating (highly confident). Members do not have access to an alternative source of supply (highly confident).
Subgroup Results:
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 1 through 10 years (highly confident). 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 limit rules cause unknown contraints, 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 does not threaten the balance between units withdrawn and units available even if no new users are added (educated guess).
Strategies Adopted:
Members 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 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 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 apparently balanced (educated guess). 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 (educated guess). 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 apparently balanced (educated guess). 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 (educated guess).
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: 115
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 high (educated guess). 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 (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) (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 (highly confident). At the end of the period the appropriators were not exercising, nor attempting to exercise, closed access to this resource (highly 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 (highly confident). The appropriators of this resource can be seen by each other while withdrawing and delivering units (highly 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. Records are kept in a language accessible to most of the appropriators (ambiguous). 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 (highly confident). 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 (inferred).
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 101-200, at the beginning of the period (highly confident). A general estimate of the number of participants in the team appropriation process was 201-500, 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 (educated guess). This position monitors rules devised by regional collective choice processes (column 2 of the rules form) and rules-in-use.
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: 100.4 - 102.2 - -2 - -2
Subgroups 100.4 and 102.2 differ in levels of dependency on the units withdrawn from this resource.
Subgroups 100.4 and 102.2 do not differ in legal rights to appropriate units, in withdrawal rates from the resource, in exposure to variations in supply, 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.
Lakes Entrance is well managed, there are no indications of rent dissipation. The author discusses withdrawals per unit of effort based on Measure of effort is number of hauls times dredge width, divided by 100.
SUBGROUP:
Participants:
This appropriation group are the fishers who have a licence to fish Lakes Entrance scallop grounds only. 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 34 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 (highly confident). 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 (highly confident).
Stakes and Resources:
The length of time this subgroup has regularly appropriated from this resource is 1 through 10 years (highly confident). 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 (ambiguous). 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 limit rules cause unknown contraints, quantity limits which limit the range of choice heavily constrain (highly confident), and marginal units, or units obtained by increasing levels of appropriation, cause unknown contraints.
Technology:
The appropriative power of the technology used does not threaten the balance between units withdrawn and units available even if no new users are added (highly confident).
Strategies Adopted:
Members do not have access to an alternative source of supply (highly confident).
Subgroup Results:
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 1 through 10 years (highly confident). 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 limit rules cause unknown contraints, 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 does not threaten the balance between units withdrawn and units available even if no new users are added (educated guess).
Strategies Adopted:
Members have access to an alternative source of supply (highly confident).
Subgroup Results:
The resource appropriated from Lakes Entrance is scallops. The resource that was studied is located offshore of the town of Lakes Entrance in Bass Strait as far south as Tasmania, depths of 10-30 fathoms.
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 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 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 apparently balanced (educated guess). 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 apparently balanced (educated guess).
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: 320
Tons of fish harvested per year at the end of the period: 115
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 high (educated guess). 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 (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) (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 (highly confident). At the end of the period the appropriators were not exercising, nor attempting to exercise, closed access to this resource (highly 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 (highly confident). The appropriators of this resource can be seen by each other while withdrawing and delivering units (highly 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. Records are kept in a language accessible to most of the appropriators (ambiguous). 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 (highly confident). 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 (inferred).
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 101-200, at the beginning of the period (highly confident). A general estimate of the number of participants in the team appropriation process was 201-500, 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 (educated guess). This position monitors rules devised by regional collective choice processes (column 2 of the rules form) and rules-in-use.
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: 100.3 - 102.1 - -2 - -2
Subgroups 100.3 and 102.1 differ in levels of dependency on the units withdrawn from this resource.
Subgroups 100.3 and 102.1 do not differ in legal rights to appropriate units, in withdrawal rates from the resource, in exposure to variations in supply, 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.
Lakes Entrance is well managed, there are no indications of rent dissipation. The author discusses withdrawals per unit of effort based on Measure of effort is number of hauls times dredge width, divided by 100.
SUBGROUP:
Participants:
This appropriation group are the fishers who have a licence to fish Lakes Entrance scallop grounds only. 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 34 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 (highly confident). 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 (highly confident).
Stakes and Resources:
The length of time this subgroup has regularly appropriated from this resource is 1 through 10 years (highly confident). 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 (ambiguous). 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 limit rules cause unknown contraints, quantity limits which limit the range of choice heavily constrain (highly confident), and marginal units, or units obtained by increasing levels of appropriation, cause unknown contraints.
Technology:
The appropriative power of the technology used does not threaten the balance between units withdrawn and units available even if no new users are added (highly confident).
Strategies Adopted:
At the beginning of the period the rate of unit withdrawals was accelerating (highly confident). Members do not have access to an alternative source of supply (highly confident).
Subgroup Results:
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 1 through 10 years (highly confident). 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 limit rules cause unknown contraints, 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 does not threaten the balance between units withdrawn and units available even if no new users are added (educated guess).
Strategies Adopted:
Members 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 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 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 apparently balanced (educated guess). 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 (educated guess). 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 apparently balanced (educated guess). 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 (educated guess).
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: 115
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 high (educated guess). 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 (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) (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 (highly confident). At the end of the period the appropriators were not exercising, nor attempting to exercise, closed access to this resource (highly 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 (highly confident). The appropriators of this resource can be seen by each other while withdrawing and delivering units (highly 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. Records are kept in a language accessible to most of the appropriators (ambiguous). 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 (highly confident). 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 (inferred).
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 101-200, at the beginning of the period (highly confident). A general estimate of the number of participants in the team appropriation process was 201-500, 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 (educated guess). This position monitors rules devised by regional collective choice processes (column 2 of the rules form) and rules-in-use.
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: 100.4 - 102.2 - -2 - -2
Subgroups 100.4 and 102.2 differ in levels of dependency on the units withdrawn from this resource.
Subgroups 100.4 and 102.2 do not differ in legal rights to appropriate units, in withdrawal rates from the resource, in exposure to variations in supply, 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.
Lakes Entrance is well managed, there are no indications of rent dissipation. The author discusses withdrawals per unit of effort based on Measure of effort is number of hauls times dredge width, divided by 100.
SUBGROUP:
Participants:
This appropriation group are the fishers who have a licence to fish Lakes Entrance scallop grounds only. 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 34 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 (highly confident). 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 (highly confident).
Stakes and Resources:
The length of time this subgroup has regularly appropriated from this resource is 1 through 10 years (highly confident). 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 (ambiguous). 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 limit rules cause unknown contraints, quantity limits which limit the range of choice heavily constrain (highly confident), and marginal units, or units obtained by increasing levels of appropriation, cause unknown contraints.
Technology:
The appropriative power of the technology used does not threaten the balance between units withdrawn and units available even if no new users are added (highly confident).
Strategies Adopted:
Members do not have access to an alternative source of supply (highly confident).
Subgroup Results:
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 1 through 10 years (highly confident). 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 limit rules cause unknown contraints, 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 does not threaten the balance between units withdrawn and units available even if no new users are added (educated guess).
Strategies Adopted:
Members have access to an alternative source of supply (highly confident).
Subgroup Results:
RESOURCE:
The resource appropriated from Lakes Entrance is scallops. The resource that was studied is located offshore of the town of Lakes Entrance in Bass Strait as far south as Tasmania, depths of 10-30 fathoms.
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 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 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 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 1 to 10 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 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 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 1 to 10 years.
The resource appropriated from Lakes Entrance is scallops. The resource that was studied is located offshore of the town of Lakes Entrance in Bass Strait as far south as Tasmania, depths of 10-30 fathoms.
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 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 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 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 1 to 10 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 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 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 1 to 10 years.
Original Case - Lakes Entrance Scallop Fishery
Resource System
The resource unit the commercial scallop, Pecten alba.
Resource Users
There are 90 fishermen licensed to fish in Lakes Entrance, 34 with licenses exclusively for Lakes Entrance and 56 with licenses for all Victorian waters.
Public Infrastructure Providers
Fisheries and Wildlife Division (FWD) Ministry for Conservation
Public Infrastructure
Soft public infrastructure - regulations restricting scallop fishing
Relationship 1
Fishers extract resource units (scallops) by using boats, dredging equipment, and wire. Too may fishing licenses may have been allocated, potentially leading to overfishing.
Relationship 2
The FWD allocates fishing licenses.
Resource users may not sell their fishing licenses, and the government will only restrict fishing licenses if the license holder gives it up voluntarily, or if the license holder is judged inactive and cannot adequately defend their case.
Relationship 3
The FWD creates rules and restrictions for the scallop fishery, and may open or close the fishery based on scallop abundance.
The Fisheries Management Committee has representatives from different fisheries and advises the FWD on management matters.
Relationship 4
Regulations limit the amount of scallops being harvested. Scallop abundance determined by commercial dredge surveys.
Relationship 5
Catch limits:
* 50 bags per day
* Maximum dredge size of 3.36 meters
Open all year, with no restrictions on times of fishing.
Relationship 6
Fishing licenses are based on historical association, which means that only fishermen operating inside the bay before the collapse were given licenses.
Exogenous Drivers 7 (Resource System)
Fishermen extract scallops at a rate greater than their regeneration rate. Fishermen using dredges has destroyed the scallops natural habitat.
Exogenous Drivers 7 (Public Infrastructure)
Fishermen, lacking the public infrastructure to sell their licenses in a legal market, gave them away with sales of their boats.
Exogenous Drivers 8 (Resource Users)
New system of fishing licenses restricted who was allowed to fish in the fishery.
Exogenous Drivers 8 (Public Infrastructure Providers)
(none specified)Human Infrastructure, Private and Human-Made (Resource Users)
(none specified)Human Infrastructure, Private and Human-Made (Public Infrastructure Providers)
(none specified)Schlager E, Arizona State University.
Brady U, Arizona State University.
. 2007. Ecological Risk Assessment for Effects of Fishing – Report for the Bass Straight Central Zone Scallop Sub-Fishery. R04/1072.
. 2015. Bass Strait Central Zone Scallop Fishery. http://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/bass-strait-central-zone-scallop-fishery/.
. 2015. Division of Economic Development - Jobs, Transport, and Resources. Scallop Fishery Overview. http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/fisheries/commercial-fishing/scallop/fishery-overview.
. 2015. Scallop season starts with increased quota for Victorian fishermen. ABC.
. 1982. Management of the Victorian Scallop Fisheries: Retrospect and Prospect. Policy and Practice in Fisheries Management. :277-316.