IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v34y2018ipbp201-205.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatially explicit framed field experiments on ecosystem services governance

Author

Listed:
  • Rommel, Jens
  • Anggraini, Eva

Abstract

Economic experiments have been advocated as an innovative research method to identify cause-and-effect relationships in social–ecological systems. In this short communication, we discuss the feasibility and practicality of introducing spatial and temporal dynamics into experiments with stakeholders in the field. We draw on our experience from an experiment conducted with 212 farmers in Indonesia. We find some potential of our approach to reduce artificiality and to enhance realism. Yet, this realism comes at the cost of a more complex data structure. Among other things, we discuss how our approach may be useful in multi-method research designs and as a tool for stakeholder communication.

Suggested Citation

  • Rommel, Jens & Anggraini, Eva, 2018. "Spatially explicit framed field experiments on ecosystem services governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 201-205.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:34:y:2018:i:pb:p:201-205
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.10.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041618301608
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rode, Julian & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Krause, Torsten, 2015. "Motivation crowding by economic incentives in conservation policy: A review of the empirical evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 270-282.
    2. Simanti Banerjee & Frans P. de Vries & Nick Hanley & Daan P. van Soest, 2014. "The Impact of Information Provision on Agglomeration Bonus Performance: An Experimental Study on Local Networks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1009-1029.
    3. repec:zbw:iamodp:271455 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Angelino C. G. Viceisza, 2016. "Creating A Lab In The Field: Economics Experiments For Policymaking," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(5), pages 835-854, December.
    5. Viceisza, Angelino C.G., 2012. "Treating the field as a lab: A basic guide to conducting economics," Food security in practice technical guide series 7, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    6. Juan-Camilo Cardenas & Marco Janssen & Francois Bousquet, 2013. "Dynamics of rules and resources: three new field experiments on water, forests and fisheries," Chapters,in: Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 11, pages 319-345 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. repec:eee:ecolec:v:141:y:2017:i:c:p:127-135 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Banerjee, Simanti & Kwasnica, Anthony M. & Shortle, James S., 2012. "Agglomeration bonus in small and large local networks: A laboratory examination of spatial coordination," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 142-152.
    9. Bettina Rockenbach & Irenaeus Wolff, 2016. "Designing Institutions for Social Dilemmas," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 17(3), pages 316-336, August.
    10. repec:bla:canjag:v:64:y:2016:i:4:p:667-694 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Reutemann, Tim & Engel, Stefanie & Pareja, Eliana, 2016. "How (not) to pay — Field experimental evidence on the design of REDD+ payments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 220-229.
    12. Fiore, Stephen M. & Harrison, Glenn W. & Hughes, Charles E. & Rutstrm, E. Elisabet, 2009. "Virtual experiments and environmental policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 65-86, January.
    13. repec:oup:ajagec:v:100:y:2018:i:1:p:172-197. is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Michael Euler & Stefan Schwarze & Hermanto Siregar & Matin Qaim, 2016. "Oil Palm Expansion among Smallholder Farmers in Sumatra, Indonesia," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(3), pages 658-676, September.
    15. repec:eee:wdevel:v:107:y:2018:i:c:p:40-53 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Liu, Zhuo & Suter, Jordan F. & Messer, Kent D. & Duke, Joshua M. & Michael, Holly A., 2014. "Strategic entry and externalities in groundwater resources: Evidence from the lab," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 181-197.
    17. Liesbeth Colen & Sergio Gomez y Paloma & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Marianne Lefebvre & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer, 2016. "Economic Experiments as a Tool for Agricultural Policy Evaluation: Insights from the European CAP," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(4), pages 667-694, December.
    18. McCarthy, John F. & Gillespie, Piers & Zen, Zahari, 2012. "Swimming Upstream: Local Indonesian Production Networks in “Globalized” Palm Oil Production," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 555-569.
    19. Ananish Chaudhuri, 2011. "Sustaining cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments: a selective survey of the literature," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(1), pages 47-83, March.
    20. Torres-Guevara, Luz Elba & Schlüter, Achim, 2016. "External validity of artefactual field experiments: A study on cooperation, impatience and sustainability in an artisanal fishery in Colombia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 187-201.
    21. Jordan F. Suter & Joshua M. Duke & Kent D. Messer & Holly A. Michael, 2012. "Behavior in a Spatially Explicit Groundwater Resource: Evidence from the Lab," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1094-1112.
    22. Gregory M. Parkhurst & Jason F. Shogren & Thomas Crocker, 2016. "Tradable Set-Aside Requirements (TSARs): Conserving Spatially Dependent Environmental Amenities," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 719-744, April.
    23. Krawczyk, Michał & Bartczak, Anna & Hanley, Nick & Stenger, Anne, 2016. "Buying spatially-coordinated ecosystem services: An experiment on the role of auction format and communication," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 36-48.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:34:y:2018:i:pb:p:201-205. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.