Topic categories; based on [11].

We study costly communication in a common-pool resource (CPR) experiment as a proxy for two different forms of participatory processes: as a public good and as a club good. A public communication meeting, representing centralized participatory processes, occurs when all group members’ monetary contributions reach a specified threshold. Club communication meetings, representing networked participatory processes, follow only among those members of the group who pay a communication fee. We test whether the way costly communication is provided affects the willingness of participants to contribute to communication, as well as the dynamics of such payments, and the content of communication. This is done by analyzing contributions to communication and communication content of 100 real-life resource users participating in a lab-in-field experiment. We find that contributions towards communication are higher when communication is public, and that club communication features more frequent but less inclusive communication meetings. Also, communication content is more oriented towards addressing the collective action problem associated with the management of the resource when communication groups are attended by all participants. The identified differences between the two ways to provide for communication can inform policies and the design of participatory processes in natural resource governance.本研究以公共池塘资源（Common-Pool Resource, CPR）实验中的付费沟通为研究对象，将其作为两类不同参与式治理模式的代理变量：分别对应公共物品模式与俱乐部物品模式。当所有群体成员的货币捐赠达到指定阈值时，即召开公共沟通会议，该会议代表中心化的参与式治理流程。俱乐部沟通会议则代表网络化的参与式治理流程，仅由缴纳沟通费用的群体成员参与举办。本研究旨在检验付费沟通的提供方式，是否会影响参与者的沟通捐赠意愿、此类捐赠的动态变化，以及沟通内容的特征。研究通过分析100名真实资源使用者在实验室田野实验（Lab-in-Field Experiment）中的沟通捐赠行为与沟通内容展开。研究结果表明，当沟通为公共模式时，参与者的沟通捐赠意愿更高；而俱乐部沟通模式下，沟通会议的举办频率更高，但包容性更低。此外，当沟通群体包含所有参与者时，沟通内容更聚焦于解决与资源管理相关的集体行动困境问题。本研究揭示的两类沟通提供方式间的差异，可为自然资源治理中的政策制定与参与式治理流程设计提供参考依据。