IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/simgam/v56y2025i5p451-476.html

Farmer Preferences on Contested Land Use in Agroforestry Landscapes: The RESORTES Game Implementation in Indonesia

Author

Listed:
  • Rika Ratna Sari
  • Danny Dwi Saputra
  • Rizki Maulana Ishaq
  • Eka Purnamasari
  • Erika N. Speelman

Abstract

Background Achieving sustainable landscape management in complex social-ecological systems necessitates a holistic evaluation and a participatory approach. Agroforestry is broadly believed to be a sustainable land-use practice. However, the existence of agroforestry systems remains uncertain, as it is influenced by socio-economic factors that depend on farmers as landowners. Objectives This study evaluated (1) chosen land use (LU) systems by agroforestry and crop farmers, (2) the consistency of LU choice, and (3) social factors influencing the relationship and leader role on the farmer decision-making process using a serious game. Methods We adapted the RESORTES board game to test applicability to the Indonesian landscape and implement the game as a research tool in the Malang context, Indonesia. Three game sessions were conducted involving the representatives of agroforestry and crop farmers of various ages, including the societal leader figure in two villages. All participants choices and (social) interactions during the session were recorded and analysed qualitatively and quantitatively. Results The RESORTES game was played appropriately in all sessions with a minor adjustment to the game, attributed to better matching the local relevance. The result showed that farmers’ preference for LU choices represented their real-life practices. Approximately 70% of plots selected by farmers in both villages were tree-based LU (agroforestry), with relatively high consistency across game rounds. Younger farmers tended to choose crop-based LU due to more economic benefits provided by the system. Older farmers were more firm on tree-based (agroforestry) systems to fulfil their daily needs; they also benefitted from less labour and the low operational costs needed by agroforestry systems. Discussion The relations (relatedness index) among farmers and the role of the leader (respected figure) became important factors in building good communications and trust, which influenced farmers’ decision-making on collaborating to maintain or change their LU. These key factors could be useful for community-based LU planning in the future, which takes into account local preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Rika Ratna Sari & Danny Dwi Saputra & Rizki Maulana Ishaq & Eka Purnamasari & Erika N. Speelman, 2025. "Farmer Preferences on Contested Land Use in Agroforestry Landscapes: The RESORTES Game Implementation in Indonesia," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 56(5), pages 451-476, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:56:y:2025:i:5:p:451-476
    DOI: 10.1177/10468781251339045
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10468781251339045
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/10468781251339045?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yigezu, Yigezu A. & Tizale, Chilot Y. & Kassie, Girma T. & Aw-Hassan, Aden, 2018. "Modelling land-use decisions in production systems involving multiple crops and varieties," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 13(3), September.
    2. Camerer, Colin F & Hogarth, Robin M, 1999. "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 7-42, December.
    3. Aida Azadegan & Gwendolyn Kolfschoten, 2014. "An Assessment Framework for Practicing Facilitator," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 1013-1045, September.
    4. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "Viewpoint: On the generalizability of lab behaviour to the field," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 347-370, May.
    5. María Elena Orduña Alegría & Niels Schütze & Samuel C. Zipper, 2020. "A Serious Board Game to Analyze Socio-Ecological Dynamics towards Collaboration in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, June.
    6. Thi Tam Duong & Tom Brewer & Jo Luck & Kerstin Zander, 2019. "A Global Review of Farmers’ Perceptions of Agricultural Risks and Risk Management Strategies," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, January.
    7. Sari, Rika Ratna & Tanika, Lisa & Speelman, Erika N. & Saputra, Danny Dwi & Hakim, Arief Lukman & Rozendaal, Danaë M.A. & Hairiah, Kurniatun & van Noordwijk, Meine, 2024. "Farmer Options and Risks in Complex Ecological-Social systems: The FORCES game designed for agroforestry management of upper watersheds," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    8. Speelman, E.N. & García-Barrios, L.E. & Groot, J.C.J. & Tittonell, P., 2014. "Gaming for smallholder participation in the design of more sustainable agricultural landscapes," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 62-75.
    9. Pierre Dupraz & Karine Latouche & Nadine Turpin, 2009. "Threshold effect and co-ordination of agri-environmental efforts," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 613-630.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. De Graeuwe, Mireille & Dumont, Benjamin & Maréchal, Kevin, 2025. "SErious Game for AgroEcology (SEGAE): How much can be delivered with a 4-hour lesson?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
    2. Dernat, Sylvain & Grillot, Myriam & Andreotti, Federico & Martel, Gilles, 2025. "A sustainable game changer? Systematic review of serious games used for agriculture and research agenda," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    3. Sari, Rika Ratna & Tanika, Lisa & Speelman, Erika N. & Saputra, Danny Dwi & Hakim, Arief Lukman & Rozendaal, Danaë M.A. & Hairiah, Kurniatun & van Noordwijk, Meine, 2024. "Farmer Options and Risks in Complex Ecological-Social systems: The FORCES game designed for agroforestry management of upper watersheds," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    4. Abel Brodeur, Nikolai M. Cook, Anthony Heyes, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell Us about Publication Bias and p-Hacking in Online Experiments," LCERPA Working Papers am0133, Laurier Centre for Economic Research and Policy Analysis.
    5. Assogba, Gildas G.C. & Speelman, Erika N. & Berre, David & Adam, Myriam & Descheemaeker, Katrien, 2025. "Exploring opportunities to improve crop-livestock integration and production in mixed farms with a serious game: The case of semi-arid Burkina Faso," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    6. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2013. "On the Generalizability of Experimental Results in Economics: With A Response To Camerer," Artefactual Field Experiments j0001, The Field Experiments Website.
    7. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Heyes, Anthony, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell us about p-Hacking and Publication Bias in Online Experiments," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1157, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    8. repec:osf:metaar:a9vhr_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2013. "On the Generalizability of Experimental Results in Economics: With a Response to Commentors," CESifo Working Paper Series 4543, CESifo.
    10. Kristin Limbach & Anne Rozan & Philipe Coent & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer, 2023. "Can collective conditionality improve agri-environmental contracts? From lab to field experiments," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 311-340, December.
    11. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    12. Herrmann, Tabea & Hübler, Olaf & Menkhoff, Lukas & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Allais for the poor," Kiel Working Papers 2036, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    13. Noah Gans & George Knox & Rachel Croson, 2007. "Simple Models of Discrete Choice and Their Performance in Bandit Experiments," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 9(4), pages 383-408, December.
    14. Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Demand for fixed-price multi-year contracts: Experimental evidence from insurance decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 171-194, October.
    15. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    16. Sarah Jacobson & Ragan Petrie, 2009. "Learning from mistakes: What do inconsistent choices over risk tell us?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 143-158, April.
    17. Noviarini, Jelita & Coleman, Andrew & Roberts, Helen & Whiting, Rosalind H., 2023. "Financial literacy and retirees' resource allocation decisions in New Zealand," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    18. Maryam Ashrafi & Ali Faghihi Rezaee, 2026. "New Product Development Risk Analysis Based on Business Value Using K-Means Clustering," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 17(2), pages 3606-3634, April.
    19. Cristiano Codagnone & Giuseppe Alessandro Veltri & Francesco Bogliacino & Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva & George Gaskell & Andriy Ivchenko & Pietro Ortoleva & Francesco Mureddu, 2016. "Labels as nudges? An experimental study of car eco-labels," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 33(3), pages 403-432, December.
    20. Michael L. Anderson & Fangwen Lu, 2017. "Learning to Manage and Managing to Learn: The Effects of Student Leadership Service," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(10), pages 3246-3261, October.
    21. Rode, Julian & Le Menestrel, Marc & Cornelissen, Gert, 2017. "Ecosystem Service Arguments Enhance Public Support for Environmental Protection - But Beware of the Numbers!," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 213-221.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sae:simgam:v:56:y:2025:i:5:p:451-476. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.