July 15, 2024

businessinsider

Costing Accounting Everyday

Structural equation modeling reveals decoupling of ecological and self-perceived outcomes in a garden box social-ecological system

  • William, C. C. & Levin, S. A. Toward a science of sustainability. Toward Sci. Sustain. 33, 172–172 (2009).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Ostrom, E. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 15181–15187. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702288104 (2007).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ostrom, E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325, 419–422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133 (2009).

    MathSciNet 
    CAS 
    Article 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Rankin, D. J., Bargum, K. & Kokko, H. The tragedy of the commons in evolutionary biology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 643–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TREE.2007.07.009 (2007).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ostrom, E. Understanding institutional diversity (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2009).

    Book 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Bodin, Ö. Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science 357, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan1114 (2017).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Nagendra, H. & Ostrom, E. Applying the social-ecological system framework to the diagnosis of urban lake commons in Bangalore, India. Ecol. Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06582-190267 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Leslie, H. M. et al. Operationalizing the social-ecological systems framework to assess sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 5979–5984. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414640112 (2015).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Cumming, G. S. et al. Advancing understanding of natural resource governance: a post-Ostrom research agenda. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 44, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.02.005 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Perrotti, D., Hyde, K. & OteroPeña, D. Can water systems foster commoning practices? analysing leverages for self-organization in urban water commons as social–ecological systems. Sustain. Sci. 15, 781–795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00782-1 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Radywyl, N. & Bigg, C. Reclaiming the commons for urban transformation. J. Clean. Prod. 50, 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.020 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Colding, J. & Barthel, S. The potential of “Urban Green Commons” in the resilience building of cities. Ecol. Econ. 86, 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.10.016 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Aronson, M. F. J. et al. Biodiversity in the city: key challenges for urban green space management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 15, 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1480 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Fox-Kämper, R. et al. Urban community gardens: an evaluation of governance approaches and related enablers and barriers at different development stages. Landsc. Urban Plan. 170, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.06.023 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • McGinnis, M. D. & Ostrom, E. Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol. Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06387-190230 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Taylor, J. R. & Lovell, S. T. Urban home food gardens in the Global North: Research traditions and future directions. Agric. Hum. Values 31, 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-013-9475-1 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Binder, C. R., Hinkel, J., Bots, P. W. G. & Pahl-Wostl, C. Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05551-180426 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Partelow, S. A review of the social-ecological systems framework: applications, methods, modifications, and challenges. Ecol. Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10594-230436 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Herrero-Jáuregui, C. et al. What do we talk about when we talk about social-ecological systems? A literature review. Sustainability (Switzerland) https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082950 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • West, S. A., Griffin, A. S. & Gardner, A. Evolutionary explanations for cooperation. Curr. Biol. 17, 661–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.004 (2007).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Levin, S. A. Public goods in relation to competition, cooperation, and spite. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 10838–10845. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1400830111 (2014).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Queller, D. C. Expanded social fitness and Hamilton’s rule for kin, kith, and kind. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 10792–10799. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1100298108 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Axelrod, R. & Hamilton, W. D. The evolution of cooperation. Science 211, 1390–1396 (1981).

    MathSciNet 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ostrom, E., Ahn, T. K. & Kingdom, U. A Social Science Perspective on Social Capital. Sociol. J. Br. Sociol. Assoc., 812–855 (2001).

  • Sobel, J. Can we trust social capital?. J. Econ. Lit. 40, 139–154 (2002).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Tornaghi, C. Critical geography of urban agriculture. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 38, 551–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513512542 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Chalmin-Pui, L. S., Griffiths, A., Roe, J., Heaton, T. & Cameron, R. Why garden?—attitudes and the perceived health benefits of home gardening. Cities 112, 103118–103118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103118 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Feinberg, A., Ghorbani, A. & Herder, P. Diversity and challenges of the urban commons: a comprehensive review. Int. J. Commons 15, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.1033 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Winkler, B., Maier, A. & Lewandowski, I. Urban gardening in Germany: Cultivating a sustainable lifestyle for the societal transition to a bioeconomy. Sustain. (Switzerland) https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030801 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Guitart, D., Pickering, C. & Byrne, J. Past results and future directions in urban community gardens research. Urban For. Urban Green 11, 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.06.007 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Andersson, E. et al. Reconnecting cities to the biosphere: Stewardship of green infrastructure and urban ecosystem services. Ambio 43, 445–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0506-y (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Philpott, S. M. et al. Gardener demographics, experience, and motivations drive differences in plant species richness and composition in urban gardens. Ecol. Soc. 25, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11666-250408 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Dunnett, N. & Qasim, M. Perceived benefits to human well-being of urban gardens. HortTechnology 10, 40–45 (2000).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Basurto, X., Gelcich, S. & Ostrom, E. The social–ecological system framework as a knowledge classificatory system for benthic small-scale fisheries. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1366–1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2013.08.001 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Villamayor-Tomas, S. et al. Using case study data to understand SES interactions: a model-centered meta-analysis of SES framework applications. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 44, 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.05.002 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Persha, L., Agrawal, A. & Chhatre, A. Social and ecological synergy: local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science 331, 1606–1608 (2011).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Egerer, M. H., Lin, B. B., Threlfall, C. G. & Kendal, D. Temperature variability influences urban garden plant richness and gardener water use behavior, but not planting decisions. Sci. Total Environ. 646, 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.270 (2019).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • van Heezik, Y., Freeman, C., Porter, S. & Dickinson, K. J. M. Garden size, householder knowledge, and socio-economic status influence plant and bird diversity at the scale of individual gardens. Ecosystems 16, 1442–1454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-013-9694-8 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Tantarimäki, S. Urbaani maatalous maankäytön ja yhteiskunnallisen tilanteen muutoksessa. Tapaustutkimuksena Turun ja Seinäjoen taajamat. Turun yliopisto. Turku (2003).

  • Chhatre, A. & Agrawal, A. Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 17667–17670 (2009).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Agrawal, A. & Chhatre, A. Explaining success on the commons: Community forest governance in the Indian Himalaya. World Dev. 34, 149–166 (2006).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Cinner, J. E. et al. Bright spots among the world’s coral reefs. Nature 535, 416–419 (2016).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Feinberg, A., Rogge, N., Hooijschuur, E., Ghorbani, A. & Herder, P. Sustaining collective action in urban community gardens. Jasss https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.4506 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Cinner, J. E. et al. Comanagement of coral reef social-ecological systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109, 5219–5222. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1121215109 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Kline, R. B. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (Guilford publications, 2015).

  • Asah, S. T. Empirical social-ecological system analysis: From theoretical framework to latent variable structural equation model. Environ. Manag. 42, 1077–1090. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9172-9 (2008).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Allen, M. C., Lockwood, J. L. & Burger, J. Finding clarity in ecological outcomes using empirical integrated social–ecological systems: a case study of agriculture-dependent grassland birds. J. Appl. Ecol. 58, 528–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13776 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Hu, L. T. & Bentler, P. M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 6, 1–55 (1999).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. Mplus user’s guide (Version 7). Los Angeles, CA: Author (1998).

  • Gignac, G. E. Self-reported emotional intelligence and life satisfaction: Testing incremental predictive validity hypotheses via structural equation modeling (SEM) in a small sample. Personal. Individ. Differ. 40, 1569–1577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.01.001 (2006).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Agrawal, A. & Chhatre, A. Against mono-consequentialism: Multiple outcomes and their drivers in social-ecological systems. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.12.007 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • CoDyre, M., Fraser, E. D. G. & Landman, K. How does your garden grow? an empirical evaluation of the costs and potential of urban gardening. Urban For. Urban Green. 14, 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.11.001 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Pretty, J. Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science 302, 1912–1914. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1090847 (2003).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Baruch, Y. Response rate in academic studies-a comparative analysis. Hum. Relat. 52, 421–438 (1999).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Fan, W. & Yan, Z. Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: a systematic review. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26, 132–139 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Burton-Chellew, M. N., Ross-Gillespie, A. & West, S. A. Cooperation in humans: competition between groups and proximate emotions. Evol. Hum. Behav. 31, 104–108 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Andersson, K. P. Who talks with whom? the role of repeated interactions in decentralized forest governance. World Dev. 32, 233–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.07.007 (2004).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • (OSF), O. S. o. F. (Helsinki: Natural Resources Institute Finland, www.stat.fi/til/satot/index_en.html, 2019).

  • Grewal, R., Cote, J. A. & Baumgartner, H. Multicollinearity and measurement error in structural equation models: implications for theory testing. Mark. Sci. 23, 519–529. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1040.0070 (2004).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Kyriazos, T. A. Applied psychometrics: sample size and sample power considerations in factor analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general. Psychology 09, 2207–2230. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.98126 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Gerbing, D. W. & Anderson, J. C. the effects of sampling error and model characteristics on parameter estimation for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Multivar. Behav. Res. 20, 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2003_2 (1985).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Teh, P. L. & Sun, H. Knowledge sharing, job attitudes and organisational citizenship behaviour. Ind Manag. Data Syst. 112(1), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571211193644 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • von Hippel, P. T. How many imputations do you need? a two-stage calculation using a quadratic rule. Sociol. Methods Res. 49, 699–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124117747303 (2020).

    MathSciNet 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wayman, J. C. in Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. 16.

  • Olinsky, A., Chen, S. & Harlow, L. The comparative efficacy of imputation methods for missing data in structural equation modeling. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 151, 53–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00578-7 (2003).

    MathSciNet 
    Article 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Tang, S. Y. Institutional arrangements and the management of common-pool resources. Public Adm. Rev. 51(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/976635 (1991).

    Article 

    Google Scholar