Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Improving Air Quality
138
1 3 8
to be non- rivalrous: With sufficient investment it is possible for everyone to
take part in the resource consumption. For instance, a fishery can be used
to restock the waters with fish, replanting can restore a forest, and water
treatment plants can provide clean water. (Just like there are non- renewable
common resources, which are not the focus here, there are public goods that
are not derived from common resources. Examples of these include media
broadcasts and information on the Internet. These public goods come into
existence entirely through the efforts of the community of users, and these
are also not the focus here.)
Public goods and common pool resources are often lumped together and
also are frequently confused with one another. They are both theoretically and
empirically distinct, though, and the differences have important consequences.
Theoretically, as mentioned earlier, common pool resources and public goods are
different in terms of their degree of rivalry. People can be sensitive to this difference and change how they behave in the two different types of situations (rivalrous versus non- rivalrous; Apesteguia and Maier- Rigaud, 2006). Public goods
and common pool resources are also perceived to be very different in terms of
the temporal sequence of events that defines each situation. For example, one
summary of the two situations is that
public goods require that citizens experience a short- term loss (of their contribution) in order to realize a long- term gain (of the good)… Common pool
resources allow citizens to experience a short- term gain (by getting what
they want in the early life of the resource) but also present the possibility of a
long- term loss (if the resource dries up). (Parks, et al., 2013, p. 119)
More succinctly, the difference can be summed up as a “pay into” system
versus a “take out” system.
Perceptions can be important, and possibly just as important as the actual
structure of a system. For example, once a public good is institutionalized
and in place, some people can (mis)perceive it to be a common pool resource.
For instance, consider a public state university. Previous generations of
residents created the university by contributing taxes (experiencing a
short- term loss) in order to create the long- term gain of that public good.
Subsequent generations experience the university as already existing (by
either ignorance or forgetting about prior generations) and providing a
stream of benefits for which they have not provided substantial investments
to create. Some of those subsequent generation members may even push for
tax cuts (short- term gain), even as those cuts damage the ability to provide
public goods they enjoy (long- term loss). Note that this does not actually
make the public good (a university, in this case) a common pool resource.
Instead, this is an issue of misperception and then mistreatment based on
those faulty perceptions.
138
1 3 8
to be non- rivalrous: With sufficient investment it is possible for everyone to
take part in the resource consumption. For instance, a fishery can be used
to restock the waters with fish, replanting can restore a forest, and water
treatment plants can provide clean water. (Just like there are non- renewable
common resources, which are not the focus here, there are public goods that
are not derived from common resources. Examples of these include media
broadcasts and information on the Internet. These public goods come into
existence entirely through the efforts of the community of users, and these
are also not the focus here.)
Public goods and common pool resources are often lumped together and
also are frequently confused with one another. They are both theoretically and
empirically distinct, though, and the differences have important consequences.
Theoretically, as mentioned earlier, common pool resources and public goods are
different in terms of their degree of rivalry. People can be sensitive to this difference and change how they behave in the two different types of situations (rivalrous versus non- rivalrous; Apesteguia and Maier- Rigaud, 2006). Public goods
and common pool resources are also perceived to be very different in terms of
the temporal sequence of events that defines each situation. For example, one
summary of the two situations is that
public goods require that citizens experience a short- term loss (of their contribution) in order to realize a long- term gain (of the good)… Common pool
resources allow citizens to experience a short- term gain (by getting what
they want in the early life of the resource) but also present the possibility of a
long- term loss (if the resource dries up). (Parks, et al., 2013, p. 119)
More succinctly, the difference can be summed up as a “pay into” system
versus a “take out” system.
Perceptions can be important, and possibly just as important as the actual
structure of a system. For example, once a public good is institutionalized
and in place, some people can (mis)perceive it to be a common pool resource.
For instance, consider a public state university. Previous generations of
residents created the university by contributing taxes (experiencing a
short- term loss) in order to create the long- term gain of that public good.
Subsequent generations experience the university as already existing (by
either ignorance or forgetting about prior generations) and providing a
stream of benefits for which they have not provided substantial investments
to create. Some of those subsequent generation members may even push for
tax cuts (short- term gain), even as those cuts damage the ability to provide
public goods they enjoy (long- term loss). Note that this does not actually
make the public good (a university, in this case) a common pool resource.
Instead, this is an issue of misperception and then mistreatment based on
those faulty perceptions.