Myceloom: The Community Substrate of Collaborative Networks

Protocol Specification - A Digital Archaeological Investigation

Josie Jefferson & Felix Velasco
Digital Archaeologists, Unearth Heritage Foundry

with Technical Collaboration from:
Claude 4.5 (Opus & Sonnet) & Gemini (2.5 & 3 Pro)
(Synthetic Intelligence Systems)

Date: January 2026
Version: 1.0
Publication Type: Protocol Specification / Working Paper
Series: The Myceloom Protocol (Part 5 of 8) DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18344298

Keywords: Myceloom, Community Governance, Commons Theory, Social Capital, Mycorrhizal Networks, Distributed Governance, Reciprocal Economics, Collective Resilience, Mutual Aid, Polycentric Systems

Abstract

Traditional organizational models have struggled with a fundamental challenge mycelial networks solved hundreds of millions of years ago: how to create resilient, collaborative systems serving the collective while preserving individual autonomy. This protocol specification presents myceloom as an alternative paradigm, drawing upon biological network principles, anthropological research on reciprocity, commons governance theory, and social capital scholarship to envision community organization systems growing like living networks and adapting like ecosystems. The specification excavates conceptual foundations for understanding community as active infrastructure rather than passive membership, examining how distributed governance, reciprocal economics, and collective resilience principles can inform human organizational systems capable of addressing complex contemporary challenges. This establishes the Community layer of the Myceloom Protocol, defining how collaborative networks can operate without centralized authority while maintaining coherence and purpose.

I. Introduction: Beyond Hierarchy

In human organization's evolution, communities have historically struggled with what political scientist Elinor Ostrom identified as the fundamental collective action challenge: how to coordinate individual behavior for collective benefit without either centralized coercion or privatized fragmentation.¹ Traditional organizational structures rely on hierarchy and centralized authority, yet these approaches fragment under stress and fail to scale sustainably. Garrett Hardin's influential (if controversial) "tragedy of the commons" has dominated institutional thinking about shared resources and collective organization.²

Beneath the earth lies nature's most successful community organization model. Mycelial networks demonstrate that decentralized cooperation enables thriving ecosystems to emerge and operate without centralized governance.³ Recent research reveals these fungal communities coordinate complex collective behaviors through purely distributed communication, maintaining ecosystem health across geological timescales through principles human communities are only beginning to understand.

Through digital archaeological excavation, the research foundry unearth.im has identified "myceloom" as the infrastructural framework for community organization mirroring biological networks.⁴ Like underground networks connecting entire forests, myceloom constitutes the substrate upon which human communities can weave collaborative relationships transcending traditional organizational boundaries. Myceloom thinking draws upon multiple scholarly traditions to articulate principles for designing human systems honoring both individual agency and collective intelligence.

II. The Architecture of Biological Community

A. Mycorrhizal Networks as Organizational Models

Mycorrhizal networks connecting forest ecosystems represent the most sophisticated community organization system ever evolved. These underground webs connect up to 90% of plant species through fungal partnerships spanning thousands of acres, creating collaborative structures enabling entire ecosystems to function as superorganisms.⁵ The term "Wood-Wide Web," coined following Suzanne Simard's groundbreaking 1997 Nature study, captures these systems' profound interconnectedness.⁶

Principles governing these biological communities challenge conventional wisdom about organization and competition. Rather than competing for scarce resources, mycelial networks facilitate resource sharing between species while coordinating collective threat responses without centralized command.⁷ Simard's research demonstrates these networks exhibit community intelligence - collective decision-making that optimizes outcomes for the entire ecosystem rather than individual organisms.

Studies of mycorrhizal cooperation reveal fungal communities operate through "indirect reciprocity"; complex mutual support webs where individual contributions benefit the collective, which in turn supports individual members through distributed resource allocation.⁸ This reciprocal architecture creates resilient systems adapting to changing conditions while maintaining community cohesion across multiple organizational scales.

B. Network Topology and Collective Intelligence

Mycorrhizal network topology reveals sophisticated organizational principles paralleling network science findings. Kevin Beiler and colleagues' mapping of Rhizopogon mycorrhizal networks in Douglas-fir forests demonstrates scale-free network properties: the same topological features found in neural networks, social networks, and the internet.⁹ These scale-free patterns enable both local efficiency (rapid communication between nearby nodes) and global efficiency (pathways connecting distant network parts).

Hub nodes - highly connected individuals serving as bridges between network regions - prove essential to network function. In forest ecosystems, mature "mother trees" with extensive mycorrhizal connections facilitate resource transfer and coordinate defense responses throughout the network.¹⁰ Removing these hub trees degrades network function for all connected individuals. Yet hub trees don't dominate subordinate nodes; they serve the network precisely by enabling other nodes' flourishing.

This topology suggests human network design principles. Systems should enable hub node emergence - highly connected individuals facilitating network function - while preventing hub dominance subordinating other nodes' autonomy. The goal is distributed hub structure where multiple individuals serve hub functions in overlapping domains, rather than centralized control through singular dominant nodes.

III. Governing the Commons: Institutional Foundations

Elinor Ostrom's Nobel Prize-winning research on common-pool resource governance provides essential theoretical grounding for myceloom frameworks. Contrary to the "tragedy of the commons" prediction, Ostrom documented numerous cases where communities successfully manage resources through "Permeable Membranes": boundaries that are clearly defined yet porous enough to allow exchange.

The Protocol defines the Community layer not as a wall but as a membrane - selective, protective, yet communicative. Ostrom's design principles align perfectly with this biological reality:¹¹

Ostrom identified eight design principles characterizing long-enduring common-pool resource institutions:

1. Clearly defined boundaries identifying community members and resource limits
2. Congruence between appropriation rules and local conditions
3. Collective-choice arrangements enabling participation by affected individuals
4. Monitoring by accountable parties
5. Graduated sanctions for rule violations
6. Conflict-resolution mechanisms
7. Minimal recognition of rights to organize
8. Nested enterprises for larger-scale systems¹²

These principles describe institutional architectures emerging from community practice rather than external imposition: the organic development characterizing mycelial network formation. Ostrom's framework suggests successful commons governance requires "polycentric" arrangements: multiple decision-making centers coordinating through mutual adjustment rather than hierarchical command.¹³

B. Polycentric Governance and Adaptive Management

Ostrom's polycentricity concept resonates deeply with myceloom principles. In polycentric systems, multiple governing authorities interact to create order within a given policy arena. Rather than treating centralization and decentralization as binary alternatives, polycentric approaches recognize effective governance often involves overlapping authorities at multiple scales, each responsive to local conditions while participating in broader coordination.¹⁴

Research on polycentric governance demonstrates such systems often outperform both purely centralized and purely decentralized alternatives in managing complex, dynamic challenges. Distributed authority structure enables experimentation and adaptation; different nodes can try different approaches, with successful innovations spreading through the network while failures remain contained.¹⁵ This mirrors mycelial networks' exploratory behavior, where individual hyphal tips probe their environment while contributing to network-wide patterns of resource allocation and threat response.

The polycentric framework also addresses "institutional diversity": recognizing no single governance model fits all contexts. Just as mycelial networks adapt structure to local environmental conditions, polycentric human systems develop contextually appropriate institutions nevertheless participating in broader coordination networks.¹⁶

IV. Social Capital: The Currency of Connection

A. Networks, Norms, and Trust

Robert Putnam's influential work on social capital provides another theoretical foundation for myceloom thinking. Putnam defines social capital as "the features of social organizations, such as networks, norms, and trust, that facilitate action and cooperation for mutual benefit."¹⁷ This conceptualization treats social relationships not merely as pleasant individual life additions but as collective resources enabling communities to solve coordination problems and achieve shared goals.

Putnam's research demonstrates communities with higher social capital levels exhibit superior outcomes in governance, economic performance, educational achievement, public health, and crisis resilience.¹⁸ Causal mechanisms involve both direct and indirect pathways: dense civic engagement networks foster generalized reciprocity norms, which generate trust reducing transaction costs and enabling cooperation.

Critically, Putnam distinguishes between "bonding" and "bridging" social capital. Bonding capital connects similar individuals and provides emotional support and within-group solidarity. Bridging capital connects individuals across social divides - different races, classes, religions, or communities - and provides access to resources and information unavailable within immediate networks.¹⁹ Healthy communities require both forms, with bridging capital essential for preventing insularity and enabling broader coordination.

B. Social Capital as Collective Infrastructure

James Coleman's earlier social capital formulation emphasized its productive capacity; social capital enables individuals and groups to accomplish things they could not accomplish alone.²⁰ This productive dimension highlights social capital's infrastructural character: like physical infrastructure, social networks and norms represent collective investments providing ongoing returns to all who use them.

The infrastructural metaphor is central to myceloom thinking. Just as mycelial networks create the physical substrate enabling forest ecosystems to thrive, social capital creates the relational substrate enabling human communities to achieve collaborative resilience. The question for community development becomes not merely how to build institutions, but how to cultivate the underlying networks, norms, and trust upon which effective institutions depend.

Contemporary research confirms social capital's importance for community resilience. Studies of disaster recovery demonstrate communities with higher pre-existing social capital recover more quickly and completely from crises.²¹ During COVID-19, communities with strong social networks and mutual aid norms demonstrated superior adaptive capacity compared to more atomized populations.²² These findings suggest investing in social capital infrastructure provides returns extending far beyond any particular challenge.

V. The Economics of Reciprocity

A. Anthropological Foundations

Mycelial communities operate through economic principles prioritizing collective benefit over individual accumulation. Fungal networks transfer resources based on need rather than payment, with abundant network areas supporting struggling regions through mutual aid systems operating at ecosystem scales.²³ These biological economics suggest alternative human resource distribution models anthropological research has documented across diverse cultures.

Marcel Mauss's foundational essay The Gift (1925) established that economic transactions in many societies are not isolated exchanges between self-interested individuals but rather elements of "total social phenomena" simultaneously addressing multiple dimensions of social life.²⁴ Mauss identified fundamental obligations governing gift economies: giving, receiving, and reciprocating. These interlocking duties create enduring relationships between individuals and groups, contrasting sharply with market exchange's discrete, completed transactions.

Marshall Sahlins extended Mauss's analysis by identifying reciprocity types along a continuum.²⁵ Generalized reciprocity involves giving freely without explicit return expectation - the pattern typical of close kin and intimate relationships. Balanced reciprocity involves expectation of equivalent return at some future point - the pattern of trading partnerships and formal alliances. Negative reciprocity involves attempting to gain advantage at another's expense - the pattern of haggling and adversarial exchange. Healthy communities cultivate generalized and balanced reciprocity while limiting negative forms.

B. Reciprocity in Contemporary Communities

Contemporary research confirms reciprocal economics' continued importance even within market-dominated societies. Studies of informal economic practices - from mutual aid networks to sharing economies to community time banks - demonstrate non-market exchange forms remain significant economic life elements, especially during crises.²⁶ These reciprocal practices build social capital enhancing community resilience while meeting needs market mechanisms fail to address.

Mutual aid practices proliferating during COVID-19 exemplify these dynamics. Research on grassroots mutual aid networks documents how communities organized quickly to address unmet needs through practices emphasizing reciprocity and collective care.²⁷ Unlike traditional charity maintaining hierarchical distinctions between givers and receivers, mutual aid networks emphasize participants are simultaneously helpers and helped - nodes in mutual support networks rather than one-directional assistance endpoints.

These reciprocal economics align with myceloom principles by demonstrating communities can develop resource distribution systems based on need rather than ability to pay, creating "gift economies" where individual contributions circulate throughout the network based on collective needs rather than individual ownership claims.²⁸ Such systems demonstrate superior crisis resilience compared to competitive economic arrangements.

VI. Community Resilience: Networks Under Stress

A. Defining Community Resilience

Community resilience has gained significant scholarly attention, particularly following major disasters and the global pandemic. A systematic literature review identified core elements characterizing resilient communities.²⁹ These elements function together rather than independently, with community network strength particularly foundational to other dimensions.

Critically, resilience research emphasizes community resilience differs from individual resilience. While individuals may cope with adversity through personal resources and characteristics, community resilience involves collective capacities emerging from relationships between community members.³⁰ A community's resilience depends not merely on the sum of individual capacities but on how those capacities are organized and coordinated: the network dimension myceloom frameworks address.

Studies of disaster recovery consistently demonstrate pre-existing social networks and community organization predict recovery outcomes more strongly than individual or physical resources.³¹ Communities where neighbors know each other, organizations coordinate, and mutual aid norms exist recover faster and more completely than atomized populations with equivalent individual resources. Cultivating community networks thus represents preparedness investment with returns compounding during crises.

B. Mutual Aid and Adaptive Capacity

Research on mutual aid networks during crises reveals mechanisms through which community resilience operates. Mutual aid - voluntary reciprocal exchange of resources and services - represents collective response to needs markets and states fail to meet.³² Unlike hierarchical assistance programs, mutual aid networks operate horizontally, treating all participants as simultaneously capable of giving and receiving support.

Studies of COVID-19 mutual aid networks document how these horizontal structures enabled rapid adaptation to novel challenges.³³ Because decisions were made locally by those closest to needs, networks could respond swiftly to changing circumstances. Because relationships rather than formal procedures governed exchanges, networks could address needs falling outside conventional categories. Because participants understood themselves as interdependent rather than independent, collective resources were mobilized more completely than individualistic frameworks would allow.

Mutual aid networks' adaptive capacity exemplifies what complexity researchers call "emergence": collective behaviors and properties arising from interactions between network elements without being reducible to those elements.³⁴ Just as mycelial networks exhibit emergent intelligence through distributed communication between hyphal tips, human mutual aid networks exhibit emergent adaptive capacity through relationships between participants. The network becomes more than the sum of its parts.

VII. The Myceloom Framework: Principles for Practice

A. Active Infrastructure vs. Passive Membership

Mycelial networks demonstrate healthy communities require active connection cultivation rather than passive membership structures. Research reveals fungal networks continuously grow new connections while allowing unproductive pathways to die back - a dynamic process researchers describe as "constantly reaching out for new connections" while prioritizing relationships "nourishing the entire network."³⁵

Such biological insight challenges static community organization models. Rather than fixed membership structures, myceloom communities operate as living systems adapting membership and connection patterns based on collective needs and individual contributions. The infrastructure metaphor operates literally rather than abstractly. Just as mycelial networks create the physical substrate enabling forest ecosystems to thrive, myceloom represents social infrastructure - principles and practices enabling human communities to achieve collaborative resilience.

Drawing from theoretical foundations examined above, several key principles emerge for myceloom community development:

Distributed Authority builds upon Ostrom's polycentric framework. Effective communities develop multiple overlapping decision-making centers responsive to local conditions while participating in broader coordination. No single authority controls the network; governance emerges from relationships between nodes.

Reciprocal Exchange extends Mauss and contemporary mutual aid research. Communities cultivate generalized reciprocity norms where members contribute according to capacity and receive according to need. Exchange builds relationships rather than completing discrete transactions.

Network Cultivation applies Putnam's social capital framework through active investment in building and maintaining connections: bonding capital within groups and bridging capital across divides. Networks require ongoing cultivation, not merely initial creation.

Adaptive Learning draws from complexity research on emergence, treating organization as experimental and evolving. Different nodes try different approaches; successful innovations spread while failures remain contained.

B. Distributed Governance: Lessons from Fungal Democracy

Mycelial networks achieve complex coordination without centralized leadership through "collective decision-making" emerging from local interactions between network members.³⁶ Individual hyphal tips respond to local conditions while contributing to network-wide patterns of resource allocation and threat response. This distributed intelligence suggests new models for human governance based on networked decision-making rather than representative delegation.

Recent scholarship on decentralized governance examines how human organizations can implement similar principles. Research on distributed authority documents both successes and challenges in operationalizing these models.³⁷ Key findings demonstrate effective distributed governance requires clear coordination protocols rather than centralized control.

The myceloom framework does not advocate eliminating all hierarchy or formal structure. Rather, it suggests hierarchy should emerge from network function rather than external imposition, authority should be distributed among multiple nodes rather than concentrated in singular centers, and governance should adapt to changing conditions rather than remaining fixed.³⁸ The goal is "heterarchy": systems where different elements can be ranked in multiple ways depending on context, rather than single fixed hierarchies.³⁹

VIII. The Immune System: Collective Defense

A. Permeability and Protection

Mycelial networks function as the forest's "immune system," protecting ecosystems by detecting threats while nourishing diversity.⁴⁰ The Myceloom Protocol mandates that the .org layer serve this precise function: acting as a distributed immune system that identifies pathogens (extractive actors, spam, abuse) without closing the membrane to beneficial nutrients (new ideas, new members).

Research in community resilience reveals that neighborhoods adopting these network principles develop "community immunity" - distributed support mechanisms that prevent individual crises from becoming systemic failures.⁴¹

Public health implications became visible during COVID-19. Communities with strong social networks and mutual care norms demonstrated superior capacity for implementing protective behaviors, supporting vulnerable members, and maintaining social cohesion under stress.⁴² These findings align with broader research demonstrating social capital and community cohesion predict health outcomes across multiple dimensions, from individual mental health to population-level disease patterns.

B. Regenerative Justice and Relationship Repair

The healing metaphor extends beyond crisis response to encompass regenerative community development. Just as mycelial networks continuously repair damaged ecosystem connections, myceloom communities prioritize relationship repair and regenerative justice over punitive responses to community challenges.⁴³ This orientation treats community harm not merely as individual wrongdoing requiring punishment, but as relationship rupture requiring repair.

Restorative and transformative justice frameworks align with myceloom principles by emphasizing harm affects relationship networks rather than merely isolated individuals, and healing requires addressing those network effects.⁴⁴ The goal is not merely punishing wrongdoers or compensating victims, but restoring relationships and addressing conditions enabling harm. This network-aware justice approach recognizes healthy communities depend on maintaining connection even through conflict.

Research on restorative justice practices demonstrates outcomes punitive approaches rarely achieve: higher victim satisfaction, reduced recidivism, strengthened community bonds, and addressal of underlying conditions enabling harm.⁴⁵ These practices exemplify myceloom principles by treating community as living network requiring continuous cultivation rather than static structure requiring enforcement.

IX. Applications: From Theory to Practice

A. Practical Implementations

Contemporary initiatives demonstrate practical myceloom principle applications in human organization. The Society for the Protection of Underground Networks (SPUN) operates as a global scientific network mirroring mycelial architecture: distributed research nodes coordinating collective action while maintaining local autonomy.⁴⁶ Their approach demonstrates how human communities can achieve planetary-scale coordination through decentralized collaboration rather than centralized authority.

Organizations like the Mycelium Youth Network apply biological network principles to community building, creating resilient support systems addressing environmental justice through distributed organizing models.⁴⁷ These initiatives suggest myceloom architectures offer viable alternatives to traditional organizational hierarchies.

The Urban Mycelium project demonstrates practical applications in urban contexts, creating community networks "helping city actors improve their practice and better cooperate with each other" through approaches mirroring biological resource-sharing patterns.⁴⁸ Such initiatives suggest myceloom principles can be operationalized across diverse contexts and scales.

B. Digital and Hybrid Networks

As documented in foundational Web4 development research, technological and social systems are evolving toward architectures enhancing human capabilities through partnership rather than replacement.⁴⁹ Digital platforms can support myceloom community development by facilitating connection, enabling distributed coordination, and scaling mutual aid practices, provided they are designed according to principles preserving human agency and community sovereignty.

Research on digital mutual aid networks during COVID-19 demonstrated both possibilities and limitations of technology-mediated community support.⁵⁰ Platforms enabled rapid scaling of mutual aid coordination across geographic distances. Yet they also revealed digital divides excluding some community members and creating dependencies on corporate infrastructure. Successful examples balanced digital coordination with in-person relationship building, using technology to extend rather than replace embodied community connection.

The myceloom framework suggests digital community infrastructure design principles. Platforms should enable peer-to-peer connection rather than centralizing control. They should support multiple communication modalities rather than imposing single formats. They should facilitate local adaptation rather than requiring uniform practices. They should remain accountable to communities rather than extracting value from them.⁵¹

X. Conclusion: The Philosophy of Living Networks

The linguistic innovation of "myceloom" provides essential terminology for navigating community organization's philosophical challenges. Rather than describing "decentralized communities with resource-sharing protocols and distributed governance structures," one speaks of myceloom organization and conveys essential qualities - biological, collaborative, resilient, adaptive. Such precision enables clearer thinking about community development honoring both individual agency and collective intelligence.

The convergence of mycorrhizal research, commons governance theory, social capital scholarship, and anthropological reciprocity research points toward unified understanding of community as living network. Individual members achieve fullest expression through integration into supportive community structures. Communities achieve highest capabilities through constituent member flourishing. The health of each depends upon and enables the health of all.

As humanity faces unprecedented challenges requiring collaborative responses - climate disruption and pandemic disease to democratic erosion - mycelial networks beneath forest floors teach profound lessons about sustainable community organization. The future of human cooperation may lie not in perfecting centralized institutions, but in weaving human communities into living networks demonstrating nature's most sophisticated approaches to collective thriving.

The myceloom framework captures this evolution - community organization systems growing like biological networks, adapting like living ecosystems, demonstrating the collaborative resilience necessary for addressing complex challenges. In this convergence of ancient ecological wisdom and contemporary social innovation lies not just organizational efficiency, but pathways toward communities nourishing all members while enhancing collective capabilities.

Communities organized according to myceloom principles can achieve what neither isolated individuals nor coercive hierarchies can accomplish - sustainable collective action preserving individual autonomy while enabling collaborative intelligence. This is not utopian aspiration but empirically grounded possibility, documented in biological systems and historical commons. The substrate for human flourishing lies not in competition but in connection, not in hierarchy but in network, not in extraction but in reciprocity.

Notes

Works Cited

Aldrich, Daniel P. Building Resilience: Social Capital in Post-Disaster Recovery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012.

Beiler, Kevin J., Daniel M. Durall, Suzanne W. Simard, Sheri A. Maxwell, and Annette M. Kretzer. "Architecture of the Wood-Wide Web: Rhizopogon spp. Genets Link Multiple Douglas-fir Cohorts." New Phytologist 185, no. 2 (2010): 543 - 553.

Cheng, Bin, et al. "Mechanisms of Cooperation in the Plants-Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Mutualism." ISME Journal 19, no. 1 (2025): wraf023.

Coleman, James S. "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital." American Journal of Sociology 94 (1988): S95 - S120.

De Domenico, Manlio, et al. "From the Origin of Life to Pandemics: Emergent Phenomena in Complex Systems." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 380 (2022): 20200410.

Gargiulo, Floriana, Maria Castaldo, Tommaso Venturini, and Paolo Frasca. "Collaboration and Performance of Citizen Science Projects Addressing the Sustainable Development Goals." Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 8, no. 1 (2023): 36.

Gorzelak, Monika A., Amanda K. Asay, Brian J. Pickles, and Suzanne W. Simard. "Inter-plant Communication through Mycorrhizal Networks Mediates Complex Adaptive Behaviour in Plant Communities." AoB Plants 7 (2015): plv050.

Hann, Chris. "The Gift and Reciprocity: Perspectives from Economic Anthropology." In Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, vol. 1, edited by Serge-Christophe Kolm and Jean Mercier Ythier, 207 - 223. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006.

Hardin, Garrett. "The Tragedy of the Commons." Science 162, no. 3859 (1968): 1243 - 1248.

Jewett, Rae L., Sarah M. Mah, Nicholas Howell, and Mandi M. Larsen. "Social Cohesion and Community Resilience During COVID-19 and Pandemics: A Rapid Scoping Review." International Journal of Health Services 51, no. 3 (2021): 325 - 336.

Lanni, Adriaan. "The Future of Community Justice." Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 40 (2005): 359 - 405.

Patel, Sonny S., Brooke Rogers, Richard Aml - t, and G. James Rubin. "What Do We Mean by 'Community Resilience'? A Systematic Literature Review of How It Is Defined in the Literature." PLOS Currents Disasters 9 (2017).

Malone, Thomas W. The Future of Work: How the New Order of Business Will Shape Your Organization, Your Management Style, and Your Life. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2004.

Mauss, Marcel. The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. Translated by Ian Cunnison. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1954 [1925].

Norris, Fran H., Susan P. Stevens, Betty Pfefferbaum, Karen F. Wyche, and Rose L. Pfefferbaum. "Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness." American Journal of Community Psychology 41 (2008): 127 - 150.

Ostrom, Elinor. "Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems." American Economic Review 100, no. 3 (2010): 641 - 672.

Ostrom, Elinor. "Do Institutions for Collective Action Evolve?" Journal of Bioeconomics 16, no. 1 (2014): 3 - 30.

Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Ostrom, Elinor. "Why Do We Need to Protect Institutional Diversity?" European Political Science 11 (2012): 128 - 147.

Ostrom, Vincent, Charles M. Tiebout, and Robert Warren. "The Organization of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry." American Political Science Review 55, no. 4 (1961): 831 - 842.

Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.

Putnam, Robert D., Robert Leonardi, and Raffaella Y. Nanetti. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.

Sahlins, Marshall. Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1972.

Schneider, Nathan. "Exit to Community: Strategies for Multi-Stakeholder Ownership in the Platform Economy." Georgetown Law Technology Review 5, no. 1 (2021): 1 - 71.

Sherman, Lawrence W., and Heather Strang. Restorative Justice: The Evidence. London: Smith Institute, 2007.

Simard, Suzanne W. Finding the Mother Tree: Discovering the Wisdom of the Forest. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2021.

Simard, Suzanne W. "Mycorrhizal Networks Facilitate Tree Communication, Learning, and Memory." In Memory and Learning in Plants, edited by František Baluška, Monica Gagliano, and Guenther Witzany, 191 - 213. Cham: Springer, 2018.

Simard, Suzanne W., David A. Perry, Melanie D. Jones, David D. Myrold, Daniel M. Durall, and Randy Molina. "Net Transfer of Carbon Between Ectomycorrhizal Tree Species in the Field." Nature 388, no. 6642 (1997): 579 - 582.

Spade, Dean. Mutual Aid: Building Solidarity During This Crisis (and the Next). London: Verso, 2020.

Stamets, Paul. Mycelium Running: How Mushrooms Can Help Save the World. Berkeley: Ten Speed Press, 2005.

Stephenson, Karen. "Neither Hierarchy nor Network: An Argument for Heterarchy." People and Strategy 32, no. 1 (2009): 4 - 7.

Kenworthy, Nora, Emily Hops, and Amy Hagopian. "Mutual Aid Praxis Aligns Principles and Practice in Grassroots COVID-19 Responses Across the US." Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 33, no. 2 (2023): 147 - 179.

Zehr, Howard. The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Rev. ed. New York: Good Books, 2015.

Zwitter, Andrej, and Jilles Hazenberg. "Decentralized Network Governance: Blockchain Technology and the Future of Regulation." Frontiers in Blockchain 3 (2020): 12.