Auction winning, social dynamics and non-compliance in a payment for ecosystem services scheme in Indonesia

Leimona, Beria; Carrasco, Luis

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.10.022

Cited by 25 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(46 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From Table 1, we can see some consistent themes emerging. For instance, questions related to payments and markets for ecosystem services, forestry, and gender differences increased, especially after 2015 [36,41,58] and those empirical observations corroborated the role of voluntary and mandatory policies for conservation based on farmer's dispositional factors such as environmental concerns and risk tolerance reported in other studies [8,10]. In addition, the papers analyzed in our sample suggest-as do other studies-that farmers with intrinsic motivations to protect the environment do not necessarily react negatively to extrinsic motivators and conservation payments [8].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Payment for environmental services (n = 2): A study in Indonesia [41] finds that longer-established farmers and those with larger plots were more likely to win PES auctions. Actual conservation compliance cost was about 115% greater than the bid outcome on average, and only about 55% of farmers completed their contracts.…”

Section: Individual Incentives Influence Cooperative Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Games and Fieldwork in Agriculture: A Systematic Review of the 21st Century in Economics and Social Science

Hernandez-Aguilera

Mauerman

Vasilaky

et al. 2020

Games

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Games are particularly relevant for field research in agriculture, where alternative experimental designs can be costly and unfeasible. Games are also popular for non-experimental purposes such as recreating learning experiences and facilitating dialogue with local communities. After a systematic review of the literature, we found that the volume of published studies employing coordination and cooperation games increased during the 2000–2020 period. In recent years, more attention has been given to the areas of natural resource management, conservation, and ecology, particularly in regions important to agricultural sustainability. Other games, such as trust and risk games, have come to be regarded as standards of artefactual and framed field experiments in agriculture. Regardless of their scope, most games’ results are subject to criticism for their internal and external validity. In particular, a significant portion of the games reviewed here reveal recruitment biases towards women and provide few opportunities for continued impact assessment. However, games’ validity should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Specific cultural aspects of games might reflect the real context, and generalizing games’ conclusions to different settings is often constrained by cost and utility. Overall, games in agriculture could benefit from more significant, frequent, and inclusive experiments and data—all possibilities offered by digital technology. Present-day physical distance restrictions may accelerate this shift. New technologies and engaging mediums to approach farmers might present a turning point for integrating experimental and non-experimental games for agriculture in the 21st century.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Individual Incentives Influence Cooperative Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

Games and Fieldwork in Agriculture: A Systematic Review of the 21st Century in Economics and Social Science

Hernandez-Aguilera

Mauerman

Vasilaky

et al. 2020

Games

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Market games and simulations-which have been common in South and Southeast Asia-reflect a longstanding interest in understanding individual and collective behaviors in the context of farm risk and inputs management [26,54,55]. Additional and complementary questions related to payments and markets for ecosystem services, forestry, and gender differences appeared after 2015 [29,44,56]. Trust and risk games, on the other hand, were among the most likely to characterize social preferences and behavior of farmers, usually in the context of cultivating crops.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A study in Indonesia [29] finds that longer-established farmers and those with larger plots were more likely to win PES auctions. Actual conservation compliance cost was about 115% greater than the bid outcome on average, and only about 55% of farmers completed their contracts.…”

Section: Payment For Environmental Services (N = 2)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Framed Experiments and Games in Agriculture: A Systematic Review of the 21st Century in Economics and Social Science

Jn¹,

Mauerman²,

A³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Framed experiments and games are a useful medium to understand how context affects individual and group decision-making. They are particularly relevant for field research in agriculture, where alternative experimental designs can be costly and unfeasible. After a systematic review of the literature, we found that the volume of published studies employing coordination and cooperation games increased during the 2000-2020 period. In recent years, there has been greater attention given to natural resource management, conservation, and ecology areas, especially in strategic regions for agriculture sustainability. Other games, such as trust and risk games, have come to be regarded as standards of framed field experiments in agriculture. Regardless of sectoral focus, most games' results are subject to internal and external validity criticism. In particular, a significant portion of the games showed potential recruitment biases against women and no opportunities for a continued impact assessment. However, games' validity should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Specific cultural aspects of games might reflect the real context, and generalizing games' conclusions to different settings is often constrained by cost and utility. Overall, games in agriculture could benefit from more significant, frequent, and inclusive experiments and data – all possibilities offered by digital technology. Present-day physical distance restrictions may accelerate this shift. New technologies and engaging ways to approach farmers might represent a turning point for games in agriculture in the 21st century.

show abstract

“…In reality, auctions feature a number of unique and often difficult-to-quantify transaction costs, including collecting information, designing the tender process, administering the program, and monitoring compliance (for the auctioneer) and learning how to participate, formulate a bid, and estimate one's own opportunity costs (for the bidder) (see Section 3.5.2). In the field experiments in Tanzania and Indonesia, for instance, the researchers held mock auctions and practice rounds to familiarize participants with the bidding procedure [81,82]. In the laboratory, transaction costs are often neglected for experimental reasons [89], but there are exceptions: Messer et al [90], for instance, include a submission fee for each parcel submitted to mimic transaction costs.…”

Section: Economic Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecosystem Services Auctions: The Last Decade of Research

Bingham

Re²,

Borges

2021

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Auctions offer potential cost-effectiveness improvements over other mechanisms for payments for ecosystem services (PES) contract allocation. However, evidence-based guidance for matching design to application is scarce and research priorities are unclear. To take stock of the current state of the art, we conducted a systematic review and thematic content analysis of 56 peer-reviewed journal articles discussing ES auctions published in the last decade. Auctions were approached from three overlapping perspectives: mechanism design, PES, and policy analysis. Five major themes emerged: (1) performance, including measures like cost-effectiveness and PES criteria like additionality; (2) information dynamics like price discovery and communication effects; (3) design innovations like risk-integrating and spatially coordinated mechanisms; (4) contextual variables like policy context and cultural values; and (5) participation factors. Additional attention from policymakers and continued efforts to coordinate research in this diverse and interdisciplinary subfield may be beneficial.

show abstract

Auction winning, social dynamics and non-compliance in a payment for ecosystem services scheme in Indonesia

Cited by 25 publications

References 31 publications

Games and Fieldwork in Agriculture: A Systematic Review of the 21st Century in Economics and Social Science

Games and Fieldwork in Agriculture: A Systematic Review of the 21st Century in Economics and Social Science

Framed Experiments and Games in Agriculture: A Systematic Review of the 21st Century in Economics and Social Science

Ecosystem Services Auctions: The Last Decade of Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About