IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lam/wpaper/14-01.html

Payments for Ecosystem Services: Can we kill two birds with one stone? Insights from a Natural Field Experiment in Madagascar

Author

Listed:
  • Sophie Clot
  • Fano Andriamahefazafy
  • Gilles Grolleau
  • Lisette Ibanez
  • Philippe Méral

Abstract

The explicit assumption underlying Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) is that offering payments that are at least equal to individual’s opportunity cost will establish individuals’ participation. At the same time, that payment should act as a substitution within landowners’ global income, making environmental conservation compatible with economic development goals, and suitable for win-win policy. This partially acts under the more general hypothesis of money fungibility built-in neoclassical economic premise. Meanwhile, behavioural economics demonstrate that individuals track their financial activities using a set of cognitive labels depending to the context in which it was obtained, each of which being associated with a different marginal propensity to consume. Based on a ‘Humans’ vs. ‘Econs’ approach, we test the effect of income’s origin (‘Low effort’ based money vs. ‘High effort’ based money) on spending decisions (Necessity vs. Superior goods) and pro social preferences (Contribution to a public good) within Madagascar rural areas that are potential beneficiaries of PES programs, using a natural field experiment. Our findings support that human’s behavioural responses matter and could, under some circumstances, alter environmental conservation policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Sophie Clot & Fano Andriamahefazafy & Gilles Grolleau & Lisette Ibanez & Philippe Méral, 2014. "Payments for Ecosystem Services: Can we kill two birds with one stone? Insights from a Natural Field Experiment in Madagascar," Working Papers 14-01, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Jan 2014.
    • Handle: RePEc:lam:wpaper:14-01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.lameta.univ-montp1.fr/Documents/DR2014-01.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2014
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christoph Engel, 2011. "Dictator games: a meta study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 583-610, November.
    2. Davies, Simon & Easaw, Joshy & Ghoshray, Atanu, 2009. "Mental accounting and remittances: A study of rural Malawian households," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 321-334, June.
    3. Börner, Jan & Wunder, Sven & Wertz-Kanounnikoff, Sheila & Tito, Marcos Rügnitz & Pereira, Ligia & Nascimento, Nathalia, 2010. "Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: Scope and equity implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1272-1282, April.
    4. Todd L. Cherry & Peter Frykblom & Jason F. Shogren, 2002. "Hardnose the Dictator," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1218-1221, September.
    5. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Bucheli, Marisa & Paz Espinosa, María & García-Muñoz, Teresa, 2013. "Moral Cleansing And Moral Licenses: Experimental Evidence," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(2), pages 199-212, July.
    6. d'Adda, Giovanna, 2011. "Motivation crowding in environmental protection: Evidence from an artefactual field experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2083-2097, September.
    7. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 1996. "The relative price of fairness: gender differences in a punishment game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 143-158, August.
    8. Milton Friedman, 1957. "A Theory of the Consumption Function," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number frie57-1, December.
    9. Epley, Nicholas & Gneezy, Ayelet, 2007. "The framing of financial windfalls and implications for public policy," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 36-47, February.
    10. Lucy Ackert & Narat Charupat & Bryan Church & Richard Deaves, 2006. "An experimental examination of the house money effect in a multi-period setting," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(1), pages 5-16, April.
    11. Jean Tirole & Roland Bénabou, 2006. "Incentives and Prosocial Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1652-1678, December.
    12. Bulte, Erwin H. & Lipper, Leslie & Stringer, Randy & Zilberman, David, 2008. "Payments for ecosystem services and poverty reduction: concepts, issues, and empirical perspectives," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 245-254, June.
    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. Sophie Clot & Gilles Grolleau & Lisette Ibanez, 2014. "An experimental analysis from a taking game in Madagascar," Working Papers 14-02, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Jan 2014.
    2. Sophie Clot & Charlotte Stanton, 2014. "Present Bias in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Insights from a Behavioural Experiment in Uganda," Working Papers 14-03, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Jan 2014.
    3. Wieliczko, Barbara, 2017. "It is all about the risk – how can an enabling environment for agricultural innovation be created within the Common Agricultural Policy?," Rural Areas and Development, European Rural Development Network (ERDN), vol. 14.

    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. Clot, Sophie & Andriamahefazafy, Fano & Grolleau, Gilles & Ibanez, Lisette & Méral, Philippe, 2015. "Compensation and Rewards for Environmental Services (CRES) and efficient design of contracts in developing countries. Behavioral insights from a natural field experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 85-96.
    2. Fanghella, Valeria & Ibanez, Lisette & Thøgersen, John, 2025. "What you don't know, can't hurt you: Avoiding donation requests for environmental causes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    3. Valeria Fanghella & Lisette Ibanez & John Thøgersen, 2025. "What you don't know, can't hurt you: Avoiding donation requests for environmental causes," Post-Print hal-04982503, HAL.
    4. Uchida, Emi & Swallow, Stephen K. & Gold, Arthur J. & Opaluch, James & Kafle, Achyut & Merrill, Nathaniel H. & Michaud, Clayton & Gill, Carrie Anne, 2018. "Integrating Watershed Hydrology and Economics to Establish a Local Market for Water Quality Improvement: A Field Experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 17-25.
    5. Christiaensen , Luc & Pan, Lei, 2012. "On the fungibility of spending and earnings -- evidence from rural China and Tanzania," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6298, The World Bank.
    6. Hermstrüwer, Yoan & Dickert, Stephan, 2017. "Sharing is daring: An experiment on consent, chilling effects and a salient privacy nudge," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 38-49.
    7. Bezu, Sosina & Holden, Stein T., 2015. "Generosity and sharing among villagers: Do women give more?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 103-111.
    8. Valeria Fanghella & Lisette Ibanez & John Thøgersen, 2025. "What you don't know, can't hurt you: Avoiding donation requests for environmental causes," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-04982503, HAL.
    9. Daniel Houser & Erte Xiao, 2015. "House money effects on trust and reciprocity," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 187-199, April.
    10. Fanghella, Valeria & Thøgersen, John, 2022. "Experimental evidence of moral cleansing in the interpersonal and environmental domains," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    11. Carlsson, Fredrik & He, Haoran & Martinsson, Peter, 2010. "Windfall vs. Earned Money in the Laboratory: Do They Affect the Behavior of Men and Women Differently?," Working Papers in Economics 468, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    12. Matthias Greiff & Fabian Paetzel, 2015. "Incomplete Information Strengthens The Effectiveness Of Social Approval," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 53(1), pages 557-573, January.
    13. Alevy, Jonathan E. & Jeffries, Francis L. & Lu, Yonggang, 2014. "Gender- and frame-specific audience effects in dictator games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 50-54.
    14. Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Tosun, 2022. "Endogenous Game Choice and Giving Behavior in Distribution Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-32, November.
    15. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    16. Björn Bartling & Vanessa Valero & Roberto A. Weber, 2018. "The causal effect of income on market social responsibility," ECON - Working Papers 299, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Aug 2024.
    17. Maite D. Laméris & Richard Jong-A-Pin & Rasmus Wiese, 2018. "An Experimental Test of the Validity of Survey-Measured Political Ideology," CESifo Working Paper Series 7139, CESifo.
    18. Gauriot, Romain & Heger, Stephanie A. & Slonim, Robert, 2020. "Altruism or diminishing marginal utility?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 24-48.
    19. Alistair Munro & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Green Goods: Are They Good or Bad News for the Environment? Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment on Impure Public Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(2), pages 317-335, October.
    20. Larney, Andrea & Rotella, Amanda & Barclay, Pat, 2019. "Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 61-72.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:lam:wpaper:14-01. 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: Patricia Modat The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Patricia Modat to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lamplfr.html .

    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.