Settlements prioritized social relationships over strict rule enforcement when sanctioning.

Evidence

In the settlements studied, sanctioning decisions involved negotiations around vulnerabilities and power, demonstrating flexibility toward different circumstances. Notably, fine collection rates varied significantly, with only Settlement 3 achieving 75% compliance while all others averaged around 50% or less (see Table 4). This pattern suggests settlements prioritized maintaining social relationships over strict rule enforcement, with rule implementation reflecting collective values around who deserves support versus accountability. Rather than implementing external sanctioning rules, communities relied on their own governance mechanisms that reflected their commitment to maintaining social relationships while addressing nonparticipation. — Jessica Carrick-Hagenbarth, Institutional Bricolage and Commoning…, 130

Categorization

• SHARE: Concrete compliance-number detail (75% vs ~50% fine collection) that would interest someone studying community governance or Ostrom-style commons enforcement.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Jessica Carrick-Hagenbarth, Institutional Bricolage and Commoning…, 130
• XREF: connects to: Blanket exclusion sanctions clash with communal settlement values and practical needs. — Jessica Carrick-Hagenbarth, Institutional Bricolage and Commoning…, 123; Agrarian settlements reject external sanction frameworks, preferring graduated enforcement that preserves social cohesion — Jessica Carrick-Hagenbarth, Institutional Bricolage and Commoning…, 129