Interrelationships between Public Open Space, Common Pool Resources, Publicness Levels and Commons Dilemmas: A Different Perspective in Urban Planning
Keywords:Public Open Space (POS), Common Pool Resource (CPR), Commons/Social Dilemmas, Urban and Neighbourhood Commons, New Institutional Economics
Public open space (POS) is central to the environment, and oftentimes spatial and architectural designs are emphasised in urban planning as part of creating quality POS. However, such initial design and planning of POS may not adequately encapsulate the sustainability dimensions of the complex social-ecological behavioural patterns of POS consumption and management, hence resulting in space mismanagement, underinvestment, and quality degradation. This phenomenon is particularly true and relevant in the context of government/state-owned POS. Therefore, an objective of this perspective paper, coupled with the concepts of the publicness levels, is to provide a different understanding of exclusivity and subtractibility natures of POS, primarily using the theory of common pool resources (CPRs), which subsequently helps explain and rationalise the perennial, adversarial POS management, quality and sustainability status quo. This paper reveals that, instead of being considered as pure public goods, scarce POS owns two inherent attributes of CPR, namely non-excludable and subtractive (rivalrous) that are ultimately susceptible to social/commons dilemmas, covering the Tragedy of the commons (overexploitation), management shirking, free-riding, underuse, disuse, and moral hazard, which lead to degraded, unsustainable POS. The commons or CPR theory can indeed offer a new paradigm shift, making urban planners and landscape managers to embrace that the unexclusive natures of CPR-based POS are truly finite and depletable and thus vulnerable to POS dilemmas. Hence, to achieve quality, sustainable POS commons, effective governance in terms of consumption and consistent management is vital. For future research, urban design as a necessary societal role is suggested, which has established the need for effective allocation of POS management via an adaptive institutional property rights design.
Alchian, A.A., and Demsetz. H. (1973). Property Rights Paradigm. Journal of Economic History. 33: 16–27.
Allen, D. W. (1991). What Are Transaction Costs? Research in Law and Economics. 14: 1–18.
Barzel, Y. (1989/ 1997). Economic Analysis Of Property Rights. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Bengston, D. N., Fletcher, J. O., and Nelson, K. C. (2004). Public Policies For Managing Urban Growth And Protecting Open Space: Policy Instruments And Lessons Learned In The United States. Landscape and Urban Planning. 69(2-3): 271–286.
Borch, C., and Kornberger, M (Eds.). (2015). Urban commons. Rethinking the city. Space, Materiality And The Normative. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.
Bromley, D. W. (1992). The Commons, Common Property, And Environmental Policy. Environmental and Resource Economics. 2(1): 1–17. doi:10.1007/BF00324686.
Broussard, S. R., Washington-ottombre, C., and Miller, B. K. (2008). Attitudes Toward Policies To Protect Open Space: A Comparative Study Of Government Planning Officials And The General Public. Landscape & Urban Planning. 86: 14–24.
Brown, A. (2015). Claiming the Streets: Property Rights and Legal Empowerment in the Urban Informal Economy. World Development. 76: 238-248.
Campbell, L., and Wiesen, A. (2009). Restorative Commons: Creating Health and Well- being through Urban Landscapes. PA, USA: USDA Forest Service.
Ciriacy-Wantrup, S.V., and R. C. Bishop. (1975). ―Common Property As A Concept
Colding, J., and Barthel, S. (2013). The Potential Of “Urban Green Commons” In The Resilience Building Of Cities. Ecological Economics, 86: 156–166.
Ellickson, R. C. (1996). Controlling Chronic Misconduct In City Spaces: Of Panhandlers, Skid Rows, And Public-Space Zoning. Yale Law Journal. 105: 1165.
Elmqvist, T. (2014). Urban Resilience Thinking. Solutions. 5 (5) (Oct 2014): 26–30.
Foster, S. R. (2011). Collective Action and the Urban Commons. Notre Dame Law Review. 87: 57–134.
Foster, S., and Laione, C. (2016). The City As A Commons. Yale Law Policy Review. 34(2): 1-69.
Glück, P. (2000). Policy Means For Ensuring The Full Value Of Forests To Society. Land Use Policy. 17(3): 177-185.
Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy Of The Commons. Science. 162: 1243–1248.
Hess, C. (2008). Mapping the New Commons. Paper presented at the 12th Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons, University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham, 14-18 July. Retrieved from http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/handle/10535/304. [Accessed on October 10, 2014].
Hess, C., and Ostrom, E (Eds.). (2006). Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.In Natural Resources Policy. Natural Resources Journal. 5(4): 713-727.
Kollock, P. (1998). Social Dilemmas: The Anatomy of Cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology. 22: 183–205.
Koomen, E., Dekkers, J., and van Dijk, T. (2008). Open-Space Preservation In The Netherlands: Planning, Practice And Prospects. Land Use Policy. 25(3): 361–377.
Lai, L. W. C. (2014). As Planning Is Everything, It Is Good For Something! A Coasian Economic Taxonomy Of Modes Of Planning. Planning Theory. 15(3): 255-273.
Ling, G., & Leng, P. (2018). Ten Steps Qualitative Modelling: Development and Validation of Conceptual Institutional-Social-Ecological Model of Public Open Space (POS) Governance and Quality. Resources. 7(4): 62.
Ling, G. H. T., & Pung, J. C. (2019). An Urban Governance Approach In The Development Of Commercial Brownfield: A Case Study Of Iskandar Malaysia. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability. 6(1): 31-38.
Ling, G. H. T., Ali, N. E. H., Ho, C. S., & Ali, H. M. (2014). Ostrom’s Design Principles In Residential Public Open Space Governance: Conceptual Framework And Literature Review. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability. 1(1): 27-37.
Ling G. H. T., Chau L. W., Ho C. S., Ali H. M. (2018). Low-Carbon Ability of Neighbourhood Public Open Space (POS) Governance: Explanation from Social-Ecological System and New Institutional Economics. Chemical Engineering Transactions. 63: 469-474.
Ling, G. (2017). Institutional Property Rights of Residential Public Open Space In Sabah, Malaysia. PhD Thesis. Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Ling, G. H. T., Ho, C. S., Ali, H. M., and Tu. F. (2016). Do Institutions Matter In Neighbourhood Commons Governance? A Two-Stage Relationship Between Diverse Property-Rights Structure And Residential Public Open Space (POS) Quality: Kota Kinabalu and Penampang, Sabah, Malaysia. International Journal of the Commons. 10(1): 294–333.
Maruani, T., and Amit-Cohen, I. (2007). Open Space Planning Models: A Review Of Approaches And Methods. Landscape and Urban Planning. 81(1-2): 1–13.
Maruani, T., and Amit-cohen, I. (2011). Land Use Policy Characteristics Of Developers And Their Relations To Open Space Conservation. Land Use Policy. 28(4): 887–897.
McCarter, M. W., Samek, A. C., and Sheremeta, R. M. (2014). Divided Loyalists Or Conditional Cooperators? Creating Consensus About Cooperation In Multiple Simultaneous Social Dilemmas. Group and Organisation Management. 39(6): 744-771.
Miyanaga, K., & Shimada, D. (2018). 'The Tragedy Of The Commons’ By Underuse: Toward A Conceptual Framework Based On Ecosystem Services And Satoyama Perspective. International Journal of the Commons. 12(1): 332-351.
Musole, M. (2009). Property Rights, Transaction Costs And Institutional Change: Conceptual Framework And Literature Review. Progress in Planning. 71(2): 43–85.
Nagendra, H., and Ostrom, E. (2014). Applying The Social–Ecological System Framework To The Diagnosis Of Urban Lake Commons in Bangalore, India. Ecology and Society. 19(2): 67.
Onwuanyi, N., & Ndinwa, C. (2017). Remaking Nigeria’s Urbanism: Assessing and Redressing the Dearth of Open Spaces in Benin City. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability. 4(2): 121-130.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2002). Type of Goods And Collective Action. Presented at Public Choice Society Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA (March).
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2009). A General Framework For Analyzing Sustainability Of Social-Ecological Systems. Science. 325(5939): 419-422.
Ostrom, V., and Ostrom. E. (1977). Public Goods and Public Choices. In E. S. Savas (Ed.), Alternatives for Delivering Public Services: Toward Improved Performance. 7-49. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Poklembovái, V., Kluvánková-Oravskáii, T., and Finkaiii, M. (2012). Challenge of New Commons – Urban Public Spaces. Paper presented at the First Global Thematic IASC Conference on the Knowledge Commons. September. Louvainla-Neuve, Belgium. Retrieved from http://biogov.uclouvain.be/iasc/doc/full%20papers/Poklembova.pdf[Accessed on May 6, 2014].
Rapoport, A. (1998). Decision Theory And Decision Behaviour. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Steelman, T., and Hess, G. R. (2009). Effective Protection Of Open Space: Does Planning Matter? Environmental Management. 44(1): 93–104.
Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A Pure Theory Of Local Expenditures. Journal of Political Economy. 5: 416-424.
Webster, C. (2002). Property Rights And The Public Realm: Gates, Green Belts, And Gemeinschaft. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 29(3): 397– 412.
Webster, C. (2007). Property Rights, Public Space And Urban Design. Town Planning Review. 78(1): 81–101.
Webster, C. J., and Lai, L. W. C. (2003). Property Rights, Planning And Markets: Managing Spontaneous Cities. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies. New York: Free Press.
Williamson, O. E. (2000). The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead. Journal of Economic Literature. 38(3): 595– 613.
Wilson, J. Q., and Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken Windows: The Police and Neighbourhood Safety. Atlantic Monthly. 249(3): 29–38
World Bank. (2015). Public Spaces - Not A “Nice To Have” But A Basic Need For Cities. Retrieved from http://blogs.worldbank.org/endpovertyinsouthasia/publicspaces- not-nice-have-basic-need-cities. [Accessed on June 10, 2015].
How to Cite
Copyright of articles that appear in International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability belongs exclusively to Penerbit Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (Penerbit UTM Press). This copyright covers the rights to reproduce the article, including reprints, electronic reproductions or any other reproductions of similar nature.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- This Journal applies Creative Commons Licenses of CC-BY-NC-SA
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).