Part 1: Theories and Concepts of STS
Authors: Riley Karsen Lovelace, Nick Allan Rodgers, Leah C Chappell, Morgan Breanna Reeves, Kaleb Gage Parsons, Cole Thomas Gaccione, Nick Sanborn, Elizabeth K Bland, Giulia Emanuel, Patrick James Orr, Liam Dennis Wood
The Tragedy of the Commons is the social dilemma involving the exploitation of common resources because these resources are shared and human beings act in self interest. This issue affects people from all walks of life, all over the world, of all socio-economic statuses, and all backgrounds. In the early 1970’s the general public was made aware of the effects of Tragedy of the Commons theory proposed by Garrett Hardin in the late 1960s. It is generally viewed as an economic issue, but it can be applied to many situations. An occurrence of this phenomenon was described in Hardin’s, Tragedy of the Commons and an overview is provided in this video:
What is the Tragedy of the Commons (embedded video)
As countries and economies have continued to develop, the theory of Tragedy of the Commons does so as well. One modern tale of the theory is described:
“Embedded in a capitalist economy, firms compete by striving for supernormal profits, gaining quick benefits based on short-term outlooks, outsourcing intolerable working conditions, and low wages to poor developing countries with weak social protection (Meisinger, 2022).”
In today’s society tragedy of the commons can be seen in the exploitation of resources by large corporations in search of large profits. It has been a trend in the last decade that companies are willing to sacrifice creating lasting environmental consequences in order to earn higher profits. This can also be seen in finding locations where there are less working condition regulations.
The theory of Tragedy of the Commons has been incredibly influential in many different disciplines. Given it was developed in 1968 by Hardin, a man well known for his work in ecology and natural selection, it is worth exploring its relevance in this decade. Hardin’s model assumes that individuals are short-term, self-interested “rational” actors, seeking to maximize their own gains. This would mean that such individuals will exploit commons (have more babies, add more cattle to pastures, pollute the air, etc) if they believe the costs to them individually are less than the benefits. But is this true? Consider the modern-day example of the community garden. How do community gardens prosper? Hardin would believe that the expected behavior is to clean out all the tomatoes before your neighbor can get his share. Yet, most community gardens do thrive. In taking a closer look at Hardin’s claim that “any competitor knows that unrestrained competition will ultimately result in one victor” it becomes apparent that there may be exceptions to this absolute statement in which commons can be successfully managed (Frischmann et al. 2019).
Perhaps the most well-known challenger of Hardin was Elinor Ostrom. She put forth a different theory and in 2009, Elinor Ostrom received the Nobel Prize in economics (Battersby, 2017). Her view was that if there can be put in place a decision-making arrangement that would enable people to act cooperatively and jointly in relation to the common resource in question, then in fact, tragedy need not result (Ostrom). Elinor, along with her husband Vincent, challenged Hardin’s work by asking the following questions: “First, how well does the tragedy of the commons allegory describe reality? … Second, does the binary choice between government command-and-control regulation and private property-enabled markets reflect the full range of options?” (Frischmann). Elinor Ostrom visited communal landholders in Ethiopia, rubber tappers in the Amazon and fishers in the Philippines. She investigated how they negotiated cooperative schemes, and how they blended their social systems with local ecosystems. Ostrom identified a set of design principles for managing resources sustainably. The Ostroms concluded that commons tragedy is real but there are viable alternatives (Ostrom). They felt that people might in fact simply communicate and cooperate which can lead to increased net benefits if individuals trust one another.
Details View: 8 Principles for Managing a Commons, https://debategraph.org/Details.aspx?nid=213367.
In a book titled Elinor Ostrom’s Rule for Radicals, Derek Wall summarizes Ostrom’s work, which concluded in eight guidelines. He summarizes how Ostrom’s logic can be used to refute the case that humans are essentially selfish. Wall’s guidelines, which he extrapolates from Ostrom’s writings, may be found by clicking here.
- Commons need clearly defined boundaries. Who is entitled to access to what? Unless there’s a specified community of benefit, it becomes a free for all.
- Rules should be dictated by local people and local ecological needs.
- Involve as many people as possible in decision-making.
- Once rules have been set, communities need a way of checking that people are keeping them. Commons don’t run on good will, but on accountability.
- Graduated sanctions are a must. Ostrom observed that the commons that worked best didn’t just ban people who broke the rules. Instead, they had systems of warnings and fines, as well as informal reputational consequences in the community.
- Conflict resolution should be easily accessible.
- Your commons rules won’t count for anything if a higher local authority doesn’t recognize them as legitimate.
- Some commons work best when part of a larger network. Some things can be managed locally, but some might need wider regional cooperation. (Wall, 2017).
While Hardin applied his theory to natural resources, the dilemma is equally applicable with respect to man-made resources. Economics and law professors have explored the extension of Hardin’s theory to Infrastructure Commons and Knowledge Commons (Frischmann et al., 2019). Like Ostrom, they challenged Hardin’s theory. Hardin would’ve said that individual users use highways in a manner that maximizes their gain but depreciates the highway, depleting the shared resource. These authors argued that commerce generates social value when we visit friends and family and generates economic value as buyers and sellers exchange goods and services. Therefore, society might find a way to manage the access to the roads, in a way that still allows for open travel (Frischmann et al., 2019). They then examined knowledge commons and whether overusing ideas depletes their value. If one believes that since ideas require humans to invest time and capital, unrestrained consumption by free riders will hurt those who generated the ideas, then Hardin’s dilemma may very well surface. While these authors agree that trusted governance of shared knowledge resources is necessary, they also present arguments that free riding is ultimately beneficial in that access to previously created knowledge plays a “critical role, fueling progress and driving … economic growth” (Frischmann et al., 2019). If certain types of knowledge –perhaps having to do with how to best share resources or care for the earth and its climate – is shared and distributed more, perhaps all of society can benefit without having to recreate access costs.
The theory is also applicable for other considerations like climate change. Arun Agarwal, a political scientist from the University of Michigan working on issues of natural resource governance and climate change, challenged the assumption that human livelihoods must be at odds with biodiversity. His team looked at 84 forest sites in East Africa and South Asia and found that where local users are involved in rulemaking, not only are their subsistence livelihoods usually better, but forests also tend to be healthier in ecological terms, with more types of tree species (Agrawal, 2001). Like Ostrom he concluded commoners must be willing to monitor how their resources are used and must devise a system of sanctions to punish anyone who violates the rules (Agrawal, 2001). This shows that the commons may actually be an opportunity if it is governed adhering to principles that provide efficiency and foster community engagement, rather than a tragedy. Taking this one step further, Ian Angus argued that Hardin had absolutely no evidence for his conclusion that humans are unable to change their behavior even in the face of certain disaster. Like Agrawal and Ostrom, he argues that “a community that shares fields and forests has a strong incentive to protect them to the best of its ability, even if that means not maximizing current production” (Angus, 2008).
Colleagues have recently critiqued Hardin’s model, and also posited that the avoidance of environmental tragedies is possible with inclusive engagement (Yitbarek, et. al., 2021). Since some communities actually oppose actions of selfishness, these authors believe that cooperation is an alternative. They explain that some conservation frameworks, rather than meeting their goal of preserving resources for the public good, risk disadvantaging the very populations whose knowledge and values may be most valuable to actually preserving them (Yitbarek, et. al, 2021). Their studies of protected wildlife areas and zoonotic diseases concluded that indigenous communities all over the world are challenged by their desire to preserve their environment. They make specific note of infectious diseases in places like Africa and argue for partnerships between local agencies and public health efforts, ultimately suggesting that local people, culture and practices should be integrated into the management of protected areas (Yitbarek, et. al, 2021). They identify the following issue however: black scientists, they claim, are less likely than their white counterparts to receive funding from national agencies, in order to address these community-based projects (Yitbarek, et.al, 2021). When “missing voices” are discussed later in this chapter, this point should be kept in mind. As Blackologists, which are defined “‘not simply scholars that are Black but, rather, are scholars who deliberately leverage and intersect Blackness into advancing knowledge production”, they argue that the marginalization of their identities across disciplines advances the very tragedy scientific communities hope to avert (Yitbarek, et.al., 2021).
There is a broad array of potential management schemes for commons resources. Figuring out how to govern ourselves successfully in a cooperative manner in our shared environments will remain a central question for years to come. Allowing people to experiment with different approaches will result in innovative solutions to todays’ commons problems. The choice is not limited to purely public or purely private solutions.
Relationship to STS
Here is where you will describe how your theory or concept directly relates to STS.
In March 2020, when the breaking news that Covid-19 was rapidly spreading, people around the world were in panic (Keane, 2021). The society we live in is extremely individualistic and narcissistic, especially in the mists of unknown circumstances (Twenge, et al., 2008). The concept of individualism refers to individuals thinking of only themselves and their families, rather than how their actions affect the society as a whole. This concept is very similar to that of the Tragedy of the Commons Theory. During the chaos of Covid-19, America desperately needed to have a collectivistic approach; however, that did not happen and the individualistic views crept in. The result of society’s selfish outlook was ultimately the spread of Covid-19. Attainable steps to flatten the curve included wearing a mask, social distancing and sanitizing; however, a percentage of people chose not to partake in these activities. While it is true that people have the right to make their own decisions, it came across as individualistic to society although different countries had different reactions depending on the cultural climate (Maaravi, (2021). Tragedy of the commons theory is clearly represented in the way that Covid-19 rapidly spread throughout the world.
The initial reaction of society to Covid-19 was to think of oneself and their family. People rushed to grocery stores, cleaned the shelves, locked themselves in their homes and completely overreacted. “As the seriousness of this pandemic settled in, people rushed to panic buy all sorts of essentials and nonessentials. Stores quickly ran out of hand sanitizer, isopropyl alcohol and disinfectant wipes” (Williams, 2020)
Today, we live in a world that has been drastically and permanently changed forever. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to linger, the virus has already left its mark in countless ways. Society has seen new styles of living and surviving that are unprecedented and different for everyone across the nation. Constant and sudden spikes in the COVID-19 outbreak have forced citizens to isolate and restrict their outside activities. A direct consequence of this isolation has made its way to the grocery store as people shop like it may be their last chance to do so. For instance, access to goods such as fresh produce, eggs, milk, and poultry is lower than ever in supply. The title given to grocery stores as bountiful and fruitful can no longer be held based on their limited supply. As stated by Nicholas Konopkas, an undergraduate student at SUNY Geneseo, “this “state of crisis” has people stocking up on foods and other essentials such as toilet paper” (Konopka, 2020). It is evident that society is in complete panic mode, however, the actions people are taking are only making the panic mode worse. The bread shelves are empty, the canned goods aisle is cleared, and the frozen meal section has placed a limit of items allowed per purchase (Konopka, 2020). If society keeps stocking up at this rate there will be no time to replenish the essential missing items before people such as the elderly can access the store when the items are back in stock. However, this scarcity in resources is not a new concept, it is known as the Tragedy of the Commons. The idea of people buying in surplus out of their own self-interest which leaves shopping carts of others empty is a real-life example that I have demonstrated in my comic strip to reflect the severity of the Tragedy of the Commons. As I previously mentioned, the effects of the virus on older aged people have limited the ability of senior citizens to go out like they once did. When it comes to food shopping, there are only certain times that they can do so in a safe manner, and if those times are not when shelves have been restocked they, unfortunately, do not have any other option but to hope the item is back whenever their next trip to the store is. Society was affected by this panic buying in varying degrees, but minority and low-income populations were among the people hit the hardest (Parker 2021). These populations had a higher chance and cause of worry about finding and having access to food during Covid-19 over their referent group peers. A study was conducted in Brazil to determine the relationship between panic buying and income levels. The published research paper states, “Based on sales data about toilet paper, the inﬂuence radius of stores, and the average per capita income in São Paulo city, this work concludes that there is a signiﬁcant positive correlation between panic buying level and per capita income during the COVID-19 pandemic” (Yoshizaki, 2020). Consumers from high-income households were more likely to participate in over-purchasing products than people with low income. This is mainly because of financial security allowing people with higher incomes to purchase large quantities of products, while low income families do not have that financial privilege to over consume. Low-income households often look to government support programs, such as WIC and food stamps, both of which were affected during the early days of the pandemic. As consumers over bought food and necessities, the products compatible with these programs became sold out, leaving the recipients of these programs without food to purchase. The panic buying that took place during the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic fully depicts the Tragedy of the Commons theory, where consumers bought more products than they needed without thinking of other people’s needs.
At that time, no one saw what they were doing as selfish. According to the article, “Extensions of ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’”, “Individualism is cherished because it produces freedom, but the gift is conditional: The more the population exceeds the carrying capacity of the environment, the more freedoms must be given up” (Hardin, 1998). It makes sense why people have the tendency to think of themselves first, but it sets society up for failure in the long run. A selfish society causes problems because most people are not willing to help others. Tragedy of the commons theory can be seen in society in countless ways other than Covid-19. The concepts of individualism remain constant no matter the situations society faces. This theory dates back for decades, so society can’t expect it to disappear, but there are steps that can be taken to accommodate it in the future.
The Overconsumption of Coffee
Most people find joy in a nice cup of coffee during their day, whether it is brewing a pot at home before work in the morning, college students running through Keurig cups while studying, or running by a Dunkin’ Donuts or Starbucks to get that satisfying first sip. A cup of coffee seems harmless, but coffee consumption is a prime example of Tragedy of the Commons. To reiterate what the theory entails; Tragedy of the Commons refers to situations where individual users have open access to a shared resource. People will then act in their own self interest and contrary to the good of society, which will cause depletion of the resource. The overconsumption of coffee is an example of this theory because coffee is a naturally occurring shared resource, but overconsumption has led to habitat loss that has endangered sixty percent of the plants’ species. One of the endangered plant species is the most commonly brewed Arabic coffee and these issues could lead to the depletion of the resource. Traditional coffee growing methods have also led to deforestation, soil erosion, and water pollution.
People all over the world consume over two billion cups of coffee every day together as a whole. Coffee beans have to be grown, cultivated, harvested, processed, transported, and then made into coffee. This process takes a toll on the environment. Farmers and businesses have adopted harmful practices to try to keep up with the increasing demand for coffee, but ultimately this will deplete land eligible to grow coffee and allow more diseases to get into the different coffee plant species. In 2015, the International Center for Tropical Agriculture released a report warning that at least fifty percent of the land used to grow coffee will be unsuitable by 2050 because of over-farming and climate change (Shah, 2021). There are companies and farmers that are producing coffee in more sustainable ways. Cutting out coffee from our lives is unrealistic, but we can do more research individually on what coffee brands are farming in sustainable ways to prevent the Tragedy of the Commons running its full effect on coffee consumption.
Coffee consumption is a true example of Tragedy of the Commons. The first step to prevention is realizing the problem. Coffee is a shared resource that most of society consumes and acts in their own self interest. Most of society does not think about the negative effects of overconsumption of this resource because of how available it is and how seemingly harmless a cup of coffee is. We can do research into more sustainable coffee brands, brew pots of coffee instead of using single Keurig cups that cause mass amounts of waste, and reusable cups instead of plastic and paper cups that come from coffee shops. As a coffee lover myself, I want coffee to be an available resource forever and not become a victim of the Tragedy of the Commons!
There are possible opportunities to combat the negative effects that the tragedy of the commons has on the world like the continued use of non-renewable resources.
Electric Vehicles are one example of how we can help solve the problem of over production and consumption of non-renewable resources like fossil fuels.
In 2018, the newly introduced Tesla Model 3 rapidly increased vehicle sales and established the vehicle as the best-selling plug-in electric vehicle with nearly 50% of the market share.
“EVs, also called battery electric vehicles, have a battery that is charged by plugging the vehicle into charging equipment. EVs always operate in all-electric mode and have typical driving ranges from 150 to 300 miles(afdc, EV).”
EV sales 2018-2019
All-electric vehicles. Alternative Fuels Data Center: All-Electric Vehicles. (n.d.). Retrieved March 29, 2022, from https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_basics_ev.htm
Ritchie, H., Roser, M., & Rosado, P. (2020, November 28). Fossil fuels. Our World in Data. Retrieved April 12, 2022, from https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels
Depleted Uranium (DU) is another example of The Tragedy of the Commons. DU is the waste byproduct of the nuclear enrichment process in which natural uranium is filtered to uranium-235 to be used in both nuclear power plants and weapons. On the other hand, DU is a less radioactive and non-fissile metal with an extremely high density that has many military and civilian uses. These uses include radioactive shielding in radiation therapy, counterweights in aircraft, medical equipment, shielding in radioactive material transport and storage, and armor plating and armor-piercing projectiles in military applications.
DU is an example of The Tragedy of the Commons because of the concerns of pollution and resource depletion in the commons as well as the threat to the quality of life of the citizens of the commons. In “Depleted Uranium: A Tragedy of the Commons”, Larson makes the claim that DU embodies Hardin’s original warnings about the “inevitable demise of civilization due to the depletion and pollution of natural resources” (Hardin, 1968; Larson, 1996). Larson’s claim is correct; DU and nuclear technology have the potential to do great harm to humanity if handled incorrectly but also the promise of helping the greater good such as nuclear reactors built to produce clean energy, free of carbon-dioxide emissions. Larson continues to argue that environmental morals and ethics should supersede human laws when it comes to nuclear technology because the “earth imposes empirical, physical repercussions for environmental misbehavior” in the forms of “erosion, pestilence, and famine” (Larson, 1996). For example, the United States Department of Energy (USDOE) and the Department of Defense (USDOD) are responsible for most federal contamination yet they resist oversight, claiming national security importance over environmental stewardship (Larson, 1996). These reckless actions may promote national security but are at the risk of environmental catastrophe. Often, those with the power to act are incentivized to ignore the commons. Larson puts it like this, “In the case of DU pollution, those who stand to profit financially have the power to overlook those who stand to suffer and die” (Larson, 1996).
In order to understand the missing voices portion of the Tragedy of the Commons Theory it’s important to focus on the word “tragedy” itself. When thinking about history surrounding the word tragedy we associate the word specifically with a bad ending rather than an unfortunate present state. Naturally, this is due to our association of the word tragedy to the Greek tragedies and tragic plays such as the likes of Shakespear. In the history of tragedies, usually a hero or protagonist character comes to ruin at the hands of his own doing through a series of bad choices and events. Thus when applying the word tragedy to the word commons we have an expected impending tragedy brought upon the commons or a set of shared resources at the hands of individuals due to a spiraling path of selfish decisions resulting in a depletion of resources and certain individuals bearing the burden. So the question now shifts to who. Who is bearing the burden of society’s selfish choices in the pursuit of temporary satisfaction? When looking at global issues such as fast fashion there are many individuals with missing voices carrying the price of our very own fashion “heroes.” In order to change the tragic fate society is playing in, it must listen to the missing voices, hear their stories, and consider that “if a fashion bargain seems too good to be true, it’s because someone [else] is paying the price” (Bravo, 2020). Thus, to begin analyzing some missing voices within fast fashion, retrace back to the who, and specifically the storylines of those working and designing.
Famous fast fashion sites society knows such as Shein, Boohoo, Fashion Nova, and so on are endorsed and advertised by influencers all over the world on social media platforms, but the individuals working strenuous hours to generate the unprecedented amount of demand for societies obsession with trendy outfits are not living the same lives of luxury as said adored influencers. In the United Kingdom reports of horrible sweatshop-like conditions have been swirling for years since the practice of ‘chasing the cheapest needle around the world’ began basically trending in itself around the 1980’s where wealthy countries began offshoring the majority of their garment manufacturing to developing countries with individuals desperately needing income. Thus, exploitation of workers is a horrific trope within the fast fashion industry. In years as recent as 2017, in the United Kingdom, “undercover reporters forChannel 4’s Dispatches found that factories making clothes for River Island, New Look, Boohoo and Missguided were paying workers as little as £3 an hour.” Naturally, many brands denied the claims or tried shifting their mission to new more humanitarian ones, but even though the heart of the Coronavirus onslaught, “numerous Leicester garment factories remained open throughout lockdown without proper safety and social distancing measures, with many workers told to come to work despite lockdown restrictions – even with symptoms, or after testing positive for Covid-19” (Bravo, 2020). Leicester, a highly populated city in England, is home to many garment factories for the fast fashion companies listed above. If the fast fashion factory workers in the United Kingdom, the fifth wealthiest country in the world, are getting less than half of the minimum national wage, it is horrifying to begin considering the conditions and treatment of the offshore workers in developing nations likely in more desperate need of financial support.
However, we must begin considering and below are some of harsh realities of those whose voices we do not hear or see on our social media popular and trending pages:
- “According to studies conducted by the World Bank, every year, the fashion sector consumes 93 billion cubic meters of water, which is enough to meet the needs of five million people.”
- “In a country like Bangladesh, where the majority of the daily wage workers, especially women workers are from the garment industry, an estimated 3.1 billion dollars worth of orders were cancelled without any prior payments” during the coronavirus outbreak
- The coronavirus left almost 50 million workers in the garment industry unemployed globally
- “Indian labourers are subjected to unjust and harsh working conditions. Approximately 12.9 million people labour in sweatshops, with millions more working in informal settings, generally in their homes…millions of Indian textile workers went hungry, became prone to COVID-19, and also faced wage fraud.”
- “There are hundreds of dyeing units in the small town of Panipat alone, and many of these machines discharge poisonous waste into the river. Drains carrying these effluents through villages pollute their drinkable water. Locals used to drink the water despite the fact that it was coloured with chemical dyes, but now they believe it is unsafe for their livestock to drink. This situation has substantial ramifications for the majority of Haryana’s inhabitants, who rely on agriculture for a living.”
- “87% of the total fibre input used for garments is burned or disposed of in a landfill,” and it is the poor developing nations bearing the majority of the ramifications from the environmental toxins”
Clearly, advertising and purchasing items in fast fashion has more of an impact then we initially realize. To grow as a society and be better neighbors to poor countries around us, we should strive to limit our consumption of fast fashion.
Here you will provide an infographic that sums up your theory or concept that includes a brief definition, its relationship to STS, and brief examples.
- How has the Tragedy of the Commons theory developed over time?
- Can you think of other applications of the theory not listed in this textbook?
Agrawal, A. and Ostrom, E. (2001) Collective Action, Property Rights, and Decentralization in Resource Use in India and Nepal. Politics & Society, 29(4), 485-514. doi:10.1177/0032329201029004002
Amendalore, Nicholas. TED-Ed. 2017, Nov 21. What is the Tragedy of the Commons? [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxC161GvMPc.
Angus, Ian. (2008) The Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons. Climate & Capitalism.https://https://mronline.org/2008/08/25/the-myth-of-the-Tragedy-of-the-commons
Battersby, S. (January 3, 2017). Can humankind escape the tragedy of the commons? PNAS. Retrieved April 5, 2022, from https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1619877114
Buck, S.J. (1992) Book Review: Governing The Commons:The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action by Elinor Ostrom, (1990). Retrieved April 5, 2022, from https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1848&context=nrj
Frischmann, B. M., Marciano, A., & Ramello, G. B. (2019). Retrospectives: Tragedy of the Commons after 50 Years. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(4). Retrieved April 5, 2022, from https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257%2Fjep.33.4.211
Hardin, G. (n.d.) Tragedy of the Commons. Econlib. Retrieved from: https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/TragedyoftheCommons.html
Hardin, G. (1998). Extensions of” the tragedy of the commons”. Science, 280(5364), 682-683.
Imani Williams, I. (March 26, 2020) 5 real world examples of the tragedy of the Commons. Population Education. Retrieved April 5, 2022, from https://populationeducation.org/5-real-world-examples-of-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/
Keane, M., & Neal, T. (2021). Consumer panic in the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of econometrics, 220(1), 86-105.
Konopka, N. (2020, May 14). Grocery stores like never before: life with COVID-19. WordPress, Retrieved from https://wp.geneseo.edu/gepcovid19/2020/05/14/grocery-stores-like-never-before-life-with-covid-19/
Larson, C. E. (1996). Depleted Uranium: A Tragedy of the Commons. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 2(3), 217–232. https://doi.org/https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1207%2Fs15327949pac0203_3
Maaravi, Y., Levy, A., Gur, T., Confino, D., & Segal, S. (2021, February 11).
“The tragedy of the commons”: How individualism and collectivism affected the spread of the covid-19
Pandemic Frontiers in public health. Retrieved January 30, 2022.
Meisinger, N. (2022). A tragedy of intangible commons: Riding the socioecological wave. Ecological Economics, 193, N.PAG. https://doi-org.libproxy.clemson.edu/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107298
Parker, Kim, et al. “Economic Fallout from Covid-19 Continues to Hit Lower-Income Americans the Hardest.” Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project, Pew Research Center, 28 May 2021, www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/09/24/economic-fallout-from-covid-19-continues-to-hit-lower-income-americans-the-hardest/#:~:text=Again%2C%20lower%2Dincome%20adults%20have,save%20less%20in%20recent%20months .
Shah, Bimal Pratap. “Tragedy of the Commons.” My Republica, My Republica, 9 Oct. 2021,myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/news/tragedy-of-the-commons/#:~:text=Coffee%20consumption%2C%20overfishing%2C%20plastic%20pollution,60%20percent%20of%20plant%20species.
Spiliakos, Alexandra. “Tragedy of the Commons: What It Is & 5 Examples: HBS Online.” Business Insights Blog, 6 Feb. 2019, online.hbs.edu/blog/post/tragedy-of-the-commons-impact-on-sustainability-issues.
Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Further evidence of an increase in narcissism among college students. Journal of Personality, 76(4), 919-928.
Wall, D. (2017). Elinor Ostrom’s Rules for Radicals: Cooperative Alternatives beyond Markets and States. Pluto Press.
Yitbarek, Bailey, K., Tyler, S., Strickland, J., McCary, M., & Harris, N. C. (2021). Inclusive Sustainability Approaches in Common-Pool Resources from the Perspective of Blackologists. Bioscience, 71(7), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab052
Yoshizaki, H. T. Y., de Brito Junior, I., Hino, C. M., Aguiar, L. L., & Pinheiro, M. C. R. (2020). Relationship between Panic Buying and Per Capita Income during COVID-19. Sustainability, 12(23), 9968. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239968