IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jgames/v11y2020i4p47-d433935.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • J. Nicolas Hernandez-Aguilera

    (International Research Institute for Climate & Society, The Earth Institute, Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964, USA)

  • Max Mauerman

    (International Research Institute for Climate & Society, The Earth Institute, Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964, USA)

  • Alexandra Herrera

    (International Research Institute for Climate & Society, The Earth Institute, Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964, USA)

  • Kathryn Vasilaky

    (International Research Institute for Climate & Society, The Earth Institute, Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964, USA
    Department of Economics, Orfalea College of Business, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407, USA)

  • Walter Baethgen

    (International Research Institute for Climate & Society, The Earth Institute, Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964, USA)

  • Ana Maria Loboguerrero

    (CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security and International Center for Tropical Agriculture, Cali 760032, Colombia)

  • Rahel Diro

    (International Research Institute for Climate & Society, The Earth Institute, Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964, USA)

  • Yohana Tesfamariam Tekeste

    (International Research Institute for Climate & Society, The Earth Institute, Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964, USA)

  • Daniel Osgood

    (International Research Institute for Climate & Society, The Earth Institute, Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964, USA)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • J. Nicolas Hernandez-Aguilera & Max Mauerman & Alexandra Herrera & Kathryn Vasilaky & Walter Baethgen & Ana Maria Loboguerrero & Rahel Diro & Yohana Tesfamariam Tekeste & Daniel Osgood, 2020. "Games and Fieldwork in Agriculture: A Systematic Review of the 21st Century in Economics and Social Science," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-22, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jgames:v:11:y:2020:i:4:p:47-:d:433935
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/11/4/47/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/11/4/47/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kathryn Vasilaky & Rahel Diro & Michael Norton & Geoff McCarney & Daniel Osgood, 2020. "Can Education Unlock Scale? The Demand Impact of Educational Games on a Large-Scale Unsubsidised Index Insurance Programme in Ethiopia," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(2), pages 361-383, February.
    2. Moros, Lina & Vélez, María Alejandra & Corbera, Esteve, 2019. "Payments for Ecosystem Services and Motivational Crowding in Colombia's Amazon Piedmont," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 468-488.
    3. Voors, Maarten & Turley, Ty & Kontoleon, Andreas & Bulte, Erwin & List, John A., 2012. "Exploring whether behavior in context-free experiments is predictive of behavior in the field: Evidence from lab and field experiments in rural Sierra Leone," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 114(3), pages 308-311.
    4. Ariel Singerman & Pilar Useche, 2019. "The Role of Strategic Uncertainty in Area-wide Pest Management Decisions of Florida Citrus Growers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 101(4), pages 991-1011.
    5. Malte Müller & Jens Rommel & Christian Kimmich, 2018. "Farmers’ Adoption of Irrigation Technologies: Experimental Evidence from a Coordination Game with Positive Network Externalities in India," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 19(2), pages 119-139, May.
    6. Poorvi Iyer & Martina Bozzola & Stefan Hirsch & Manuela Meraner & Robert Finger, 2020. "Measuring Farmer Risk Preferences in Europe: A Systematic Review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 3-26, February.
    7. Brick, Kerri & Visser, Martine, 2015. "Risk preferences, technology adoption and insurance uptake: A framed experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 383-396.
    8. Hopfensitz, Astrid & Miquel-Florensa, Josepa, 2017. "Mill ownership and farmer's cooperative behavior: the case of Costa Rica coffee farmers," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 623-648, September.
    9. Matthias Benz & Stephan Meier, 2008. "Do people behave in experiments as in the field?—evidence from donations," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(3), pages 268-281, September.
    10. Aksoy, Billur & Palma, Marco A., 2019. "The effects of scarcity on cheating and in-group favoritism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 100-117.
    11. John A. List & Robert Metcalfe, 2014. "Field experiments in the developed world: an introduction," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 30(4), pages 585-596.
    12. Elsa T.A. Berthet & C�cile Barnaud & Nathalie Girard & Julie Labatut & Guillaume Martin, 2016. "How to foster agroecological innovations? A comparison of participatory design methods," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(2), pages 280-301, February.
    13. Benjamin A. Olken, 2015. "Promises and Perils of Pre-analysis Plans," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(3), pages 61-80, Summer.
    14. Paswel Marenya & Vincent H. Smith & Ephraim Nkonya, 2014. "Relative Preferences for Soil Conservation Incentives among Smallholder Farmers: Evidence from Malawi," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 96(3), pages 690-710.
    15. Kaczan, David J. & Swallow, Brent M. & Adamowicz, W.L. (Vic), 2019. "Forest conservation policy and motivational crowding: Experimental evidence from Tanzania," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 444-453.
    16. Sukaina Bharwani & Mònica Coll Besa & Richard Taylor & Michael Fischer & Tahia Devisscher & Chrislain Kenfack, 2015. "Identifying Salient Drivers of Livelihood Decision-Making in the Forest Communities of Cameroon: Adding Value to Social Simulation Models," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 18(1), pages 1-3.
    17. Louis Lebel & Phimphakan Lebel, 2018. "Emotions, attitudes, and appraisal in the management of climate-related risks by fish farmers in Northern Thailand," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(8), pages 933-951, August.
    18. Ling Yee Khor & Susanne Ufer & Thea Nielsen & Manfred Zeller, 2018. "Impact of risk aversion on fertiliser use: evidence from Vietnam," Oxford Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(4), pages 483-496, October.
    19. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2002. "Altruistic punishment in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6868), pages 137-140, January.
    20. Martin Ravallion, 2018. "Should the Randomistas (Continue to) Rule?," Working Papers 492, Center for Global Development, revised 17 Jan 2019.
    21. Dörschner, T. & Musshoff, O., 2015. "How do incentive-based environmental policies affect environment protection initiatives of farmers? An experimental economic analysis using the example of species richness," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 90-103.
    22. repec:feb:artefa:0086 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Yasuyuki Sawada & Ryuji Kasahara & Keitaro Aoyagi & Masahiro Shoji & Mika Ueyama, 2013. "Modes of Collective Action in Village Economies: Evidence from Natural and Artefactual Field Experiments in a Developing Country," Asian Development Review, MIT Press, vol. 30(1), pages 31-51, March.
    24. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2009. "Can Field Experiments Return Agricultural Economics to the Glory Days?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1259-1265.
    25. Peth, Denise & Mußhoff, Oliver & Funke, Katja & Hirschauer, Norbert, 2018. "Nudging Farmers to Comply With Water Protection Rules – Experimental Evidence From Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 310-321.
    26. Fielke, Simon & Taylor, Bruce & Jakku, Emma, 2020. "Digitalisation of agricultural knowledge and advice networks: A state-of-the-art review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    27. Uwe Deichmann & Aparajita Goyal & Deepak Mishra, 2016. "Will digital technologies transform agriculture in developing countries?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(S1), pages 21-33, November.
    28. Deaton, Angus & Cartwright, Nancy, 2018. "Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 2-21.
    29. Denise Peth & Oliver Mußhoff, 2020. "Comparing Compliance Behaviour of Students and Farmers. An Extra‐laboratory Experiment in the Context of Agri‐environmental Nudges in Germany," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 601-615, June.
    30. repec:feb:artefa:0110 is not listed on IDEAS
    31. John A. List, 2011. "Why Economists Should Conduct Field Experiments and 14 Tips for Pulling One Off," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(3), pages 3-16, Summer.
    32. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    33. Michael Norton & Daniel Osgood & Malgosia Madajewicz & Eric Holthaus & Nicole Peterson & Rahel Diro & Conner Mullally & Tse-Ling Teh & Mengesha Gebremichael, 2014. "Evidence of Demand for Index Insurance: Experimental Games and Commercial Transactions in Ethiopia," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(5), pages 630-648, May.
    34. 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.
    35. Olivier Barreteau & François Bousquet & Jean-Marie Attonaty, 2001. "Role-Playing Games for Opening the Black Box of Multi-Agent Systems: Method and Lessons of Its Application to Senegal River Valley Irrigated Systems," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 4(2), pages 1-5.
    36. Tsusaka, Takuji W. & Kajisa, Kei & Pede, Valerien O. & Aoyagi, Keitaro, 2015. "Neighborhood effects and social behavior: The case of irrigated and rainfed farmers in Bohol, the Philippines," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 227-246.
    37. Clémence Moreau & Cécile Barnaud & Raphaël Mathevet, 2019. "Conciliate Agriculture with Landscape and Biodiversity Conservation: A Role-Playing Game to Explore Trade-Offs among Ecosystem Services through Social Learning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, January.
    38. Cilliers, Jacobus & Dube, Oeindrila & Siddiqi, Bilal, 2015. "The white-man effect: How foreigner presence affects behavior in experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 397-414.
    39. Simone Gobien & Björn Vollan, 2016. "Exchanging Land for Solidarity: Solidarity Transfers among Voluntarily Resettled and Non-resettled Land-Reform Beneficiaries," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(3), pages 802-818.
    40. repec:feb:framed:0089 is not listed on IDEAS
    41. Rajiv Seth & Valeed A. Ansari & Manipadma Datta, 2009. "Weather-risk hedging by farmers: An empirical study of willingness-to-pay in Rajasthan, India," Journal of Risk Finance, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 10(1), pages 54-66, January.
    42. Ansink, Erik & Tesfaye, Abonesh & Bouma, Jetske & Brouwer, Roy, 2017. "Cooperation in watershed management: A field experiment on location, trust, and enforcement," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 91-104.
    43. Marrocoli, Sergio & Gatiso, Tsegaye Tagesse & Morgan, David & Nielsen, Martin Reinhardt & Kühl, Hjalmar, 2018. "Environmental Uncertainty and Self-monitoring in the Commons: A Common-pool Resource Experiment Framed Around Bushmeat Hunting in the Republic of Congo," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 274-284.
    44. Swen P. M. Bos & Tina Cornioley & Anne Dray & Patrick O. Waeber & Claude A. Garcia, 2020. "Exploring Livelihood Strategies of Shifting Cultivation Farmers in Assam through Games," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-17, March.
    45. 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.
    46. Pamela Katic & Tim Ellis, 2018. "Risk aversion in agricultural water management investments in Northern Ghana: experimental evidence," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(5), pages 575-586, September.
    47. Steven Buck & Jeffrey Alwang, 2011. "Agricultural extension, trust, and learning: results from economic experiments in Ecuador," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 42(6), pages 685-699, November.
    48. Hardy, Pierre-Yves & Dray, Anne & Cornioley, Tina & David, Maia & Sabatier, Rodolphe & Kernes, Eric & Souchère, Véronique, 2020. "Public policy design: Assessing the potential of new collective Agri-Environmental Schemes in the Marais Poitevin wetland region using a participatory approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    49. Stefan Moser & Oliver Mußhoff, 2016. "Ex-ante Evaluation of Policy Measures: Effects of Reward and Punishment for Fertiliser Reduction in Palm Oil Production," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(1), pages 84-104, February.
    50. Hayo, Bernd & Vollan, Björn, 2012. "Group interaction, heterogeneity, rules, and co-operative behaviour: Evidence from a common-pool resource experiment in South Africa and Namibia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 9-28.
    51. Merlet, Pierre & Van Hecken, Gert & Rodriguez-Fabilena, René, 2018. "Playing before paying? A PES simulation game for assessing power inequalities and motivations in the governance of Ecosystem Services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 218-227.
    52. Bouma, Jetske & Bulte, Erwin & van Soest, Daan, 2008. "Trust and cooperation: Social capital and community resource management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 155-166, September.
    53. Cristina Romero Granja & Meike Wollni, 2019. "Opportunistic Behaviour and Trust: Experimental Results from Broccoli Farmers in Ecuador," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(1), pages 62-80, February.
    54. Laura Schechter, 2006. "Trust, trustworthiness, and risk in rural Paraguay," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(2), pages 173-173, June.
    55. Gian Nicola Francesconi & Fleur Wouterse, 2015. "The Health of Farmer-Based Organisations in Ghana: Organisational Diagnostics and Governance Implications," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(3), pages 262-273, March.
    56. François J Dessart & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & René van Bavel, 2019. "Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 417-471.
    57. Thea Nielsen & Alwin Keil & Manfred Zeller, 2013. "Assessing farmers’ risk preferences and their determinants in a marginal upland area of Vietnam: a comparison of multiple elicitation techniques," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(3), pages 255-273, May.
    58. Müller Malte & Kimmich Christian & Rommel Jens, 2018. "Farmers’ Adoption of Irrigation Technologies: Experimental Evidence from a Coordination Game with Positive Network Externalities in India," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 19(2), pages 119-139, May.
    59. Tao Ye & Ming Wang, 2013. "Exploring risk attitude by a comparative experimental approach and its implication to disaster insurance practice in China," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(7), pages 861-878, August.
    60. Midler, Estelle & Pascual, Unai & Drucker, Adam G. & Narloch, Ulf & Soto, José Luis, 2015. "Unraveling the effects of payments for ecosystem services on motivations for collective action," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 394-405.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sylvain, Dernat & Bertrand, Dumont & Dominique, Vollet, 2023. "La Grange®: A generic game to reveal trade-offs and synergies among stakeholders in livestock farming areas," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marie Ferré & Stefanie Engel & Elisabeth Gsottbauer, 2023. "External validity of economic experiments on Agri‐environmental scheme design," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 661-685, September.
    2. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    3. Gruner, Sven & Lehberger, Mira & Hirschauer, Norbert & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2022. "How (un)informative are experiments with students for other social groups? A study of agricultural students and farmers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(03), January.
    4. Muller, Malte & Rommel, Jens, 2018. "Should I Stay or Should I Go? A Behavioral Approach to Organizational Choice in Tajikistan’s Agriculture," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(3), September.
    5. Gruener, Sven & Lehberger, Mira & Hirschauer, Norbert & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2021. "How (un-)informative are experiments with “standard subjects” for other social groups? – The case of agricultural students and farmers," SocArXiv psda5, Center for Open Science.
    6. Rommel, Jens & Anggraini, Eva, 2018. "Spatially explicit framed field experiments on ecosystem services governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 201-205.
    7. Robert Huber & Hang Xiong & Kevin Keller & Robert Finger, 2022. "Bridging behavioural factors and standard bio‐economic modelling in an agent‐based modelling framework," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 35-63, February.
    8. Jens Rommel & Julian Sagebiel & Marieke Cornelia Baaken & Jesús Barreiro‐Hurlé & Douadia Bougherara & Luigi Cembalo & Marija Cerjak & Tajana Čop & Mikołaj Czajkowski & María Espinosa‐Goded & Julia Höh, 2023. "Farmers' risk preferences in 11 European farming systems: A multi‐country replication of Bocquého et al. ()," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(3), pages 1374-1399, September.
    9. Luc Behaghel & Karen Macours & Julie Subervie, 2019. "How can randomised controlled trials help improve the design of the common agricultural policy?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 473-493.
    10. Luong, Tuan, 2023. "Network resilience and risk attitudes: Evidence from Vietnamese Vegetable Farming," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334556, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    11. Jens Rommel & Julian Sagebiel & Marieke Cornelia Baaken & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & Douadia Bougherara & Luigi Cembalo & Marija Cerjak & Tajana Čop & Mikołaj Czajkowski & María Espinosa-Goded & Julia Höh, 2022. "Farmers' risk preferences in eleven European farming systems: A multi-country replication of Bocquého et al. (2014)," Working Papers 2022-24, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    12. Bluffstone, Randy & Dannenberg, Astrid & Martinsson, Peter & Jha, Prakash & Bista, Rajesh, 2020. "Cooperative behavior and common pool resources: Experimental evidence from community forest user groups in Nepal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    13. Rawadee Jarungrattanapong & Suparee Boonmanunt, 2020. "Collective action and other-regarding behavior: an assessment of games vs reality in Thailand," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 22(4), pages 485-507, October.
    14. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    15. Aoyagi, Keitaro & Sawada, Yasuyuki & Shoji, Masahiro, 2022. "Irrigation infrastructure and trust: Evidence from natural and lab-in-the-field experiments in rural communities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    16. Marianne Lefebvre & Jesus Barreiro‐Hurlé & Ciaran Blanchflower & Liesbeth Colen & Laure Kuhfuss & Jens Rommel & Tanja Šumrada & Fabian Thomas & Sophie Thoyer, 2021. "Can Economic Experiments Contribute to a More Effective CAP?," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 20(3), pages 42-49, December.
    17. Handberg, Øyvind Nystad & Angelsen, Arild, 2015. "Experimental tests of tropical forest conservation measures," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 346-359.
    18. Grillos, Tara & Bottazzi, Patrick & Crespo, David & Asquith, Nigel & Jones, Julia P.G., 2019. "In-kind conservation payments crowd in environmental values and increase support for government intervention: A randomized trial in Bolivia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Robert Finger & Nadja El Benni, 2021. "Farm income in European agriculture: new perspectives on measurement and implications for policy evaluation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(2), pages 253-265.
    20. Thibaut Arpinon & Marianne Lefebvre, 2024. "Registered Reports and Associated Benefits for Agricultural Economics," Post-Print hal-04635986, HAL.

    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:gam:jgames:v:11:y:2020:i:4:p:47-:d:433935. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.