Many wildlife species that are essential to human livelihoods are targeted with the aim of extracting short-term benefits. Overexploitation, resulting from failed common-pool resource governance, has endangered the sustainability of large animal species, in particular. Rights-based approaches to wildlife conservation offer a possible path forward. In a wildlife market, property rights, or shares of an animal population, are allocated to resource users with interests in either harvest or preservation. Here, I apply the Social-Ecological Systems (SES) framework (Ostrom, 2009) to identify the conditions under which the ecological, social, and economic outcomes of a conservation market are improved compared to the status quo. I first consider three case studies (Bighorn sheep, white rhino, and Atlantic Bluefin tuna) all of which employ different market mechanisms. Based on the SES framework and these case studies, I then evaluate whether markets are a feasible management option for other socially and ecologically significant species, such as whales (and similar highly migratory species), and whether market instruments are capable of accommodating non-consumptive environmental values in natural resource decision making. My results suggest that spatial and temporal distribution, ethical and cultural relevance, and institutional histories compatible with commodification of wildlife are key SES subsystem variables. Successful conservation markets for cross-boundary marine species, such as whales, sea turtles, and sharks, will require intergovernmental agreements.

Farmers' markets are a growing trend both in Arizona and the broader U.S., as many recognize them as desirable alternatives to the conventional food system. As icons of sustainability, farmers' markets are touted as providing many environmental, social, and economic benefits, but evidence is mounting that local food systems primarily serve the urban elite, with relatively few low-income or minority customers. However, the economic needs of the market and its vendors often conflict with those of consumers. While consumers require affordable food, farmers need to make a profit. How farmers' markets are designed and governed can significantly influence the extent to which they can meet these needs. However, very little research explores farmers' market design and governance, much less its capacity to influence financial success and participation for underprivileged consumers. The present study examined this research gap by addressing the following research question: How can farmers' markets be institutionally designed to increase the participation of underprivileged consumers while maintaining a financially viable market for local farmers? Through a comparative case study of six markets, this research explored the extent to which farmers' markets in Central Arizona currently serve the needs of farmer-vendors and underprivileged consumers. The findings suggest that while the markets serve as a substantial source of income for some vendors, participation by low-income and minority consumers remains low, and that much of this appears to be due to cultural barriers to access. Management structures, site characteristics, market layout, community programs, and staffing policies are key institutional design features, and the study explores how these can be leveraged to better meet the needs of the diverse participants while improving the markets' financial success.

This research presents an analysis of the main institutions and economic incentives that drive farmers behaviors on water use in the Chancay-Lambayeque basin, located in Lambayeque (Peru), a semi arid area of great agricultural importance. I focus my research on identifying the underlying causes of non-collaborative behaviors in regard to water appropriation and infrastructure provisioning decision that generates violent conflicts between users. Since there is not an agreed and concrete criteria to assess "sustainability" I used economic efficiency as my evaluative criteria because, even though this is not a sufficient condition to achieve sustainability it is a necessary one, and thus achieving economic efficiency is moving towards sustainable outcomes. Water management in the basin is far from being economic efficient which means that there is some room for improving social welfare. Previous studies of the region have successfully described the symptoms of this problem; however, they did not focus their study on identifying the causes of the problem. In this study, I describe and analyze how different rules and norms (institutions) define farmers behaviors related to water use. For this, I use the Institutional Analysis and Development framework and a dynamic game theory model to analyze how biophysical attributes, community attributes and rules of the system combined with other factors, can affect farmers actions in regard to water use and affect the sustainability of water resources. Results show that water rights are the factor that is fundamental to the problem. Then, I present an outline for policy recommendation, which includes a revision of water rights and related rules and policies that could increase the social benefits with the use of compensation mechanisms to reach economic efficiency. Results also show that commonly proposed solutions, as switch to less water intensive and more added value crops, improvement in the agronomic and entrepreneurial knowledge, or increases in water tariffs, can mitigate or exacerbate the loss of benefits that come from the poor incentives in the system; but they do not change the nature of the outcome.

Over the last few decades, the western United States has experienced more extreme wildland fire events, remarkable for their size and severity. The frequency, intensity, and size of wildfires is projected to only increase, with severe consequences for biodiversity, ecosystem services, human property, and more broadly, the sustainability of western forests. These trends are the result of a complex suite of factors including, past land-use policies, fire suppression, climate change, and human development. To protect fire-adapted ecosystems from further damage, fuel reduction and fire reintroduction are required over large landscapes, necessitating government agencies, landowners, and other interests to work together. In response, collaborative fire restoration efforts are forming to carry out this much needed work. This research takes a multi-level approach to understanding these new models for fire management and restoration. Collaborative, landscape-level approaches to fire reintroduction are a direct response to a failure in past policies and approaches, which necessitates a discussion of why these policies allowed fires to grow worse and why management failed to effectively prevent this from happening. Thus, a historical analysis of wildland fire policy and management constitutes one layer in this analysis. Collaborative frameworks to wildland fire reintroduction are few and far between, which obliges a discussion of how collaboration works and why it may be necessary. An in-depth case study of FireScape, a collaborative effort in southeastern Arizona to restore wildfire completes this analysis and provides a discussion of the challenges, benefits, and implications of these new approaches. The context for this case study is southeastern Arizona's Sky Islands. The Sky Islands region spans the U.S. Mexico borderlands and is a biodiversity hotspot, making it an ideal place to explore the interactions between humans and natural systems. The more recent emphasis on collaboration in wildfire management has yet to be fully explored in other academic circles. Collaboration is essential in fire restoration and provides one pathway to solve complex natural resource management issues.