Collective Action in Tourism Management: Studying Ostrom Design Principle in the Touristic Village of Matin Abaad

جغرافیاوتوسعه ناحیه ای

Article 11, Volume 15, Issue 2 - Serial Number 29, March 2018, Pages 241-267   

Document Type: scientific-research article

DOI: 10.22067/geography.v15i2.68577

Authors

Samaneh Mosayebi^* ; Hamid Barghi; Dariyosh Rahimi; Yousof Ghanbari

University of Isfahan

Abstract

Extended abstract
1. Introduction
According to classical economics, market needs to take care of providing private goods while providing public goods and managing mutual resources is on the government. But governments’ inefficiency in these responsibilities had made participatory management and collective action approach important and attractive among new theories. Several researches had been administered within last decades about collective action which was directly related to management of natural resources. Meanwhile, Ostrom, 2009 Noble Prize winner, offered eight design principles in order to create a stable organization capable of managing mutual resources by using INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK (IAD). She believed that using such principles make a successful management on mutual resources. This paper tries to evaluate the development of Esfahan north-western villages using tourism development strategy according to Ostrom principles.
2. Theoretical Framework
There are three methods for managing mutual resources: governmental management, private management, self-organization (participatory management). collective action is best for organizing and managing mutual resources for people whose income is dependent on that mutual resource (and it forms a direct interaction between system and its employees; so, in this research, employees of this camp are called either members or users of the system). Ostrom, accordingly, studied subjects related to institutional approach of collective action. Ostrom empirically proved self-organization and its triumph in different cases and she also studied it in a lab economy using Transactional Analysis theory (TA) in human behavior in action environment and proved possibility of people cooperation and participation in mutual goods supplement.
3. Methodology
This research studies the performance of Matin Abaad eco-camp and its characteristics, level of Ostrom principle being used, and its achievements. Institutional analysis and development framework was used for collecting data and analyzing them because the objectivet of this study was to check the level of success when applying Ostrom principles. Factor limit forms were used for the analysis of principles; in this method, only two limit extremes are checked that it does not consider factors as a specter but checks the factor existence or non-existence. Two classes of internal and external factors that influence tourism management in the area are the two variables of this study. The internal part of this research is compatible with variables that theorists use in order to analyze an official game. External variables had been questioned in the questionnaire too, even though they were not related to the objectives of current research. Considering characteristics of investigating system, questions were selected that were associated with physical and societal characteristics and also compatible with criteria questionnaire. In-use rules and operational rules were included in the questionnaire. It needed indexes for measuring success in the system. Three indexes of reliability in wage and sufficient salary and beneficiary, level of rule violation of personnel, and ordinary behavior explanation of system personnel regarding current rules are the final success indicators that were selected among many indexes for determining the level of success in systems.
Sample capacity is fifty and they were selected randomly. They responded to the questionnaire. Data was analyzed by checking system rules and regulations, assessing system performance and determining the level of system success and ultimately the level of Ostrom principle running in the system.
4. Results and Discussion
This research has two main objectives: The first main objective is to evaluate success in Matin Abaad tourism system. Hence, two sets of internal dependent variables influencing on action status were identified: 1. Rules being used within the system and 2. System performance observation. These two variables are also included in this study because they are influencing factors on action status and will help to have a better analysis even though this is a Ostrom-principle-based study. So, these two variables are assessed by adding them to research’s questionnaire and statistical tests in form of some sub-variables. Based on the ratio test (binomial), the rules used in the system with a significant level of 0.005 are strictly observed. The correlation coefficient of the system rules is 1.00. So, it is concluded that the rules running in the system are well employed. In other words, it was indicated that there are no governmental restrictions for consuming water, land and, etc. Salary and benefits sufficiency and the level of law breaking and members’ behavior results indicate that system had an acceptable performance. The second main objective was to analyze eight principles of Ostrom in Matin Abaad eco-camp. So, a set of external variables influencing on action status were assessed and studied based on Ostrom principles. Questionnaire outputs indicate that Matin Abaad tourism system had been quite successful and had administered perfectly and according to Ostrom principles (Ostrom design has eight principles and Matin Abaad eco camp had followed all but the eighth principle which deals with merged enterprises).
5. Conclusion and Suggestions
Matin Abaad Village is one of desert villages in the city of Natanz, Esfahan Province that used collective action and participatory management for utilizing region’s tourism capacities. The camp’s most important feature is its collective action and local management. Results indicate that Matin Abaad touristic eco-camp is a successful and developing example of collective action. Results indicate that Ostrom model brought success to the management of mutual resources by using institutional analysis pattern and developing a stable organization for managing mutual resources. It has a proper potential for activating touristic abilities in rural development. As a matter of fact, this method of managing resources is capable of turning into a proper management pattern in stable development because it is coordinated with traditions of participation, co-contribution and cooperation and also because it lasted in time, evolved and it is now compatible with geographical conditions of region and its society.
So it is suggested that:
- In order to improve tourism, the government will provide facilities for the creation of self-organizing systems.
- To support these types of systems, the government can consider special financial facilities

Keywords

collective action; Ostrom design principles; Participatory management; Tourism management; Matin Abaad

References

1. بهلول‌وند، ع.، صدر، س. ک.، و هاشمی، س. ا. (1393). بررسی نقش بازارهای آب کشاورزی در قیمت‌گذاری و تخصیص منابع آب: نمونة موردی بازار آب مجن. تحقیقات اقتصاد و توسعة کشاورزی ایران، 45(4)، 773-761.

2. خباز رحیمی لنگرودی، پ. (1394). کنش جمعی در مدیریت منابع طبیعی: مطالعة اصول استروم در شرکت آبیاری مجن و تعاونی آب بران مهیار اصفهان. (پایان‌نامة منتشرنشدة کارشناسی‌ارشد علوم اقتصادی)، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.

3. رجب‌پور، ص. (1390). مدیریت مشارکتی آبیاری در منطقة مجن (مطالعة موردی از نمونه‌ای موفق). فصلنامة مهاب قدس، 54(23)، 59-51.

4. زارعی دستگردی، ز.، ایروانی، ه.، شعبانعلی فمی، ه.، و مخاری حصاری، ا. (1387). بررسی عوامل بهبود عملکرد تشکیل آب بران در مدیریت شبکة آبرسانی (بخش جرقویة استان اصفهان). مجلة کشاورزی، 10(1)، 72-61.

5. Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24 (3), 347–364.

6. Agrawal, A. (2001). Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Development, 29(10), 1649–1672.

7. Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2004). A framework to analyze the robustness of social–ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society, 9(1), 18-25.

8. Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A., & Walker, B. N. (2002). Grazing management, resilience and the dynamics of a fire driven rangeland system. Eco systems, 5(2), 23–44.

9. Araral, E. (2014). Ostrom, Hardin and the commons: A critical appreciation and a revisionist view. Environmental Science & Policy, 36 (4), 11-23.

10. Baland, J., & Platteau, J. P. (1996). Halting degradation of natural resources: Is there a role for rural communities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. UK: Oxford University.

11. Bardhan, P. (1993). Analytics of the institutions of informal cooperation in rural development. World Development, 21(4), 633–639.

12. Bastakoti, R.C. and Shivakoti, G.P. (2009). Context and institutions in irrigation management: Applicability of design principles in Nepal and Thailand. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Unit for Social and Environmental Research (USER (publication.

13. Berhanu, G., Pender, J., & Tesfay, G. (2002). Collective action for grazing land management in crop livestock mixed systems in the highlands of Northern Ethiopia. Nairobi: International Livestock Research publication.

14. Bromley, D. W. (1992). Making the commons work: Theory, practice, and policy. San Francisco: ICS Publication.

15. Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B. H., Anderies, M. A., & Abel, N. A. (2001). From metaphor to measurement: Resilience of what to what? Eco systems, 4(7), 756–781.

16. Chin Lin, A., & Loftis, K. (2005). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods in political science: A primer. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American political science association, Washington, DC.

17. Crona, B., & Bodin, Ö. (2006). What you know is who you know? Communication patterns among resource users as a prerequisite for co-management. Ecology and Society, 11(2), 7-13.

18. Cumming, G. S., Barnes, G., Perez, S., Schmink, M., Sieving, K., Southworth, J., Van Holt, T. (2005). An exploratory framework for the empirical measurement of resilience. Ecosystems, 8(2), 975–987.

19. Dobson, A. (1999). Justice and the environment: Conceptions of environmental sustainability and dimensions of social justice. UK: Oxford University.

20. Fiksel, J. (2006). Sustainability and resilience toward a systems approach. Sustainability Science, Practice & Policy, 2(2), 1–8.

21. Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C. S., & Walker, B. (2002). Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio, 31(5), 437–440.

22. Fraser, E. D. G., Mabee, W., & Slaymaker, O. (2003). Mutual vulnerability, mutual dependence: The reflexive relation between human society and the environment. Global Environmental Change, 13(4), 137–144.

23. Gallopin, G. C. (2006). Linkages between vulnerability, resilience and adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 293–303.

24. Gottlieb, R. (2001). Environmentalism unbound: Exploring new pathways for change. Cambridge: MIT Publication.

25. Hardin, G .(1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243-1248.

26. Janssen, M. A., & Ahn, T. K. (2006). Learning, signaling, and social preferences in public-good games. Ecology and Society, 11(2), 21-30.

27. Marshall, G. (1998). A dictionary of sociology. UK: Oxford University.

28. Meinzen-Dick, R., Di Gregorio, M., & McCarthy, N. (2004). Methods for studying collective action in rural development. Agricultural Systems, 82(12), 197–214.

29. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Publication.

30. Orsi, L., De Noni, I., Corsi, S., & Viviana Marchisio, L. (2017). The role of collective action in leveraging farmers' performances: Lessons from sesame seed farmers' collaboration in Eastern Chad. Journal of Rural Studies, 51(6), 93-104.

31. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons, the evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University.

32. Ostrom, E. (1992).The rudiments of the theory of the origins, survival, and performance of common property institutions. San Francisco: ICS Publication.

33. Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action: Presidential address, American political science association. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 1–22.

34. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University.

35. Ostrom, E. (2009). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economy systems. Indiana: Indiana University.

36. Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. The Police Study Journal, 39(1), 7-27.

37. Penov, I. (2003). Institutional option for sustainable irrigation: Evidence from Bulgaria. Prague: Czech publication.

38. Pottete, A., Janssen, M., & Ostrom, E. (2010). Working together: Collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

39. Prasad, N. (2008). Social policies and private sector participation in water supply beyond regulation. New York: United Nation publication.

40. Saleth, R. (1999). Irrigation privatization in India: Options, issues and experience. Economic and Political Weekly, 26(3), 86-92.

41. Schumann, W. (2002). Institutional reform in the irrigation sector: The case of Turkey and Pakistan. Bonn : Reforming Institution for sustainable water management publication.

42. Seabright, P. (1997). Is cooperation habit-forming? Oxford: Clarendon Publication.

43. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: an overview. In N. Denzinin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp.121-128). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.

44. Tang, S. Y. (1992). Designing complex institutional arrangements: Linking bureaucratic and local self-governing organizations. San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press.

45. Toleubayev, K., Jansen, K., & Van Huis, A. (2007). Locust control in transition: The loss and reinvention of collective action in post-Soviet Kazakhstan. Ecology and Society, 12(2), 38-49.

46. Tompkins, E. L., & Adger, W. N. (2004). Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate change? Ecology and Society, 9(2), 23-35.

47. Tubin, D. (1912). Adaptation and adoption of the Raiffeisen system of rural cooperative credit in the United States. Rome: International Institute of Agriculture Publication.

48. Uphoff, N. (1986). Local institutional development: An analytical sourcebook with cases. West Hartford: Kumarian Publication.

49. Wade, R. (1988). Village republics: Economic conditions for collective action in South India. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University publication.

50. Wei, F. (2014). Compendium of best practices in sustainable tourism. UN: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Publication.

51. Yang, L., & Wu, J. (2009). Scholar-participated governance as an alternative solution to the problem of collective action in social–ecological systems. Ecological Economics, 68(6), 2412–2425.