The Commons: Three Case Studies of Community Forested Land

Ruth B. McKay


This paper examines three communities that include common land in the community design. The common land provides natural habitat for recreational purposes along with privacy and a natural visual barrier. One of the three communities the commons arrangement fails after more than thirty years and the community sells most of the common land for private ownership. The other two are examples of successful commons where the community maintains the common lands and exhibits a growing commitment to the holding of common land. The paper examines why two of the three communities have success and prosper while the third fails. The findings provide insight into designs that work to maintain community common land and those that fail. 

Full Text:



Baland, J. M., & Platteau, J. P. (1998). Division of the commons: a partial assessment of the new institutional economics of land rights. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 644-650.

Caselaw (1999) Berry vs. Indian Park Association 1999 1294.

Coleman, E. A., & Mwangi, E. (2015). Conflict, Cooperation, and Institutional Change on the Commons. American Journal of Political Science.

Hanoch Dagan & Michael A. Heller, The Liberal Commons, 110 YALE L.J. 549, 581-87 (2001)

Farley, J., Costanza, R., Flomenhoft, G., & Kirk, D. (2015). The Vermont Common Assets Trust: An institution for sustainable, just and efficient resource allocation. Ecological Economics, 109, 71-79.

Forsyth, T., & Johnson, C. (2014). Elinor Ostrom's Legacy: Governing the Commons and the Rational Choice Controversy. Development and Change, 45 (5), 1093-1110.

Indian Park Association (2006). Sugarbush.

North Simcoe Community News (2009). Sugarbush Scuttlebutt.

Maplegrove Association (MGA) (2015). Common Lands Committee Report for theOro Hills Property Owners Association: Vision, Recommendations and Guidelines, Nov 1, 2015.

Maplegrove Association (MGA) (2014). Welcome Package.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.

Poteete, A.R. and E. Ostrom (2004) ‘Heterogeneity, Group Size and Collective Action: The Role of Institutions in Forest Management’, Development and Change 35(3): 435–62.

Pine Tree Way (2015). Stewardship Plan: For the woodlands owned by the Pine Tree Way, 2015-2034.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2016 Journal of Public Management Research

Journal of Public Management Research   ISSN 2377-3294

Copyright © Macrothink Institute 

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the '' domains to your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', please check your 'spam' or 'junk' folder.