in

Participatory policies and intrinsic motivation to conserve forest commons

  • 1.

    Engel, S., Palmer, C. & Pfaff, A. On the endogeneity of resource comanagement: theory and evidence from Indonesia. Land Econ. 89, 308–329 (2013).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 2.

    Mansuri, G. & Rao, V. Localizing Developing: Does Participation Work? (World Bank, 2013).

  • 3.

    Arnstein, S. R. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 35, 216–224 (1969).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 4.

    Reed, M. S. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol. Conserv. 141, 2417–2431 (2008).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 5.

    Coleman, E. A. & Fleischman, F. D. Comparing forest decentralization and local institutional change in Bolivia, Kenya, Mexico, and Uganda. World Dev. 40, 836–849 (2012).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 6.

    Rustagi, D., Engel, S. & Kosfeld, M. Conditional cooperation and costly monitoring explain success in forest commons management. Science 330, 961–965 (2010).

  • 7.

    Spreitzer, G. M. Individual empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, validation. Acad. Manage. J. 38, 1442–1465 (1995).

    • Google Scholar
  • 8.

    Zhang, X. & Bartol, K. M. Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: the influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Acad. Manage. J. 53, 108–128 (2010).

    • Google Scholar
  • 9.

    Gómez-Baggethun, RodeJ. & Krause, T. Motivation crowding by economic incentives in conservation policy: a review of the empirical evidence. Ecol. Econ. 117, 270–282 (2015).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 10.

    Ezzine-de-Blas, CorberaE. & Lepeyre, R. Payments for environmental services and motivational crowding: towards a conceptual framework. Ecol. Econ. 156, 434–443 (2019).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 11.

    Cárdenas, J. C. Human behaviour and the use of experiments to understand the agricultural, resource, and environmental challenges of the XXI century. Agric. Econ. 47, 61–71 (2016).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 12.

    Cárdenas, J. C., Stranlund, J. & Willis, C. Local environmental control and institutional crowding-out. World Dev. 28, 1719–1733 (2000).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 13.

    Vollan, B. Socio-ecological explanations for crowding-out effects from economic field experiments in southern Africa. Ecol. Econ. 67, 560–573 (2008).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 14.

    Andersson, K. P. et al. Experimental evidence on payments for forest commons conservation. Nat. Sustain. 1, 128–135 (2018).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 15.

    Kaczan, D. J., Swallow, B. M. & Adamowicz, W. L. Forest conservation policy and motivational crowding: Experimental evidence from Tanzania’. Ecol. Econ. 156, 444–453 (2018).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 16.

    Dedeurwaerdere, T. J. et al. Combining internal and external motivations in multi-actor governance arrangements for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Environ. Sci. Policy 58, 1–10 (2016).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 17.

    Fundação Amazonas Sustentável Relatório de Atividades 2018 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sqwdTWI4KXMpLfk36p_ADzC2Hpu1kkOW/view (2018).

  • 18.

    Ferraro, P. & Simpson, D. The cost-effectiveness of conservation payments. Land Econ. 78, 339–353 (2002).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 19.

    Groom, B. & Palmer, C. Cost-effective provision of environmental services: the role of relaxing market constraints. Env. Dev. Econ. 15, 219–240 (2010).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 20.

    Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. in Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Perspectives on Motivation 38 (ed. Dienstbier, R.) 237–288 (Univ. of Nebraska Press, 1991).

  • 21.

    Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55, 68–78 (2000).

  • 22.

    Bauer, M. et al. Can war foster cooperation? J. Econ. Perspect. 30, 249–274 (2016).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 23.

    Fabbri, M. How Institutions Shape Preferences: Experimental Evidence from a Large-scale Property Rights Reform Implemented as Randomized Control-trial http://hdl.handle.net/1765/104965 (2017).

  • 24.

    Cragg, J. G. Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the demand for durable goods. Econometrica 39, 829–844 (1971).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 25.

    Bound, J., Jaeger, D. A. & Baker, R. M. Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable is weak. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 90, 443–450 (1995).

    • Google Scholar
  • 26.

    Bouma, J., Reyes-García, V., Huanca, T. & Arrazola, S. Understanding conditions for co-management: a framed field experiment amongst the Tsimane, Bolivia. Ecol. Econ. 141, 32–42 (2017).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 27.

    Bowles, S. & Polania-Reyes, S. Economic incentives and social preferences: substitutes or complements? J. Econ. Lit. 50, 368–425 (2012).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 28.

    Bardhan, P. Decentralization of governance and development. J. Econ. Perspect. 16, 185–205 (2002).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 29.

    Andersson, K. & Agrawal, A. Inequalities, institutions, and forest commons. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 866–875 (2011).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 30.

    Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990).

  • 31.

    Baland, J.-M. & Platteau, J.-P. Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is There a Role for Rural Communities? (FAO, 1996).

  • 32.

    Ostrom, E., Gardner, R. & Walker, J. Rules, Games, and Common-pool Resources (Univ. of Michigan Press, 1994).

  • 33.

    Sally, D. Can I say ‘bobobo’ and mean ‘There’s no such thing as cheap talk’. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 57, 245–266 (2005).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 34.

    Souza, G. I. People, Parks, and Public Policies in the Twenty-First Century. Human Security and the Political Ecologies of the Brazilian Amazon. Reflections from the Mosaic of Protected Areas of the Lower River Negro, Amazonas (King’s Brazil Institute, 2017).

  • 35.

    Ostrom, E. Collective action and the evolution of social norms’. J. Econ. Perspect. 14, 137–158 (2000).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 36.

    Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S. & Fehr, E. Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a Public Goods experiment. Econ. Lett. 71, 397–404 (2001).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 37.

    Keser, C. & van Winden, F. Conditional cooperation and voluntary contributions to public goods. Scand. J. Econ. 102, 23–39 (2000).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 38.

    Gupta, S. K. Intention-to-treat concept: a review. Perspect. Clin. Res. 2, 109–112 (2011).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 39.

    Battese, G. E. A note on the estimation of Cobb–Douglas production functions when some explanatory variables have zero values. J. Agric. Econ. 48, 250–252 (1997).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 40.

    QGIS Development Team QGIS Geographic Information System v.2.18 (Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project, 2016); http://qgis.osgeo.org


  • Source: Ecology - nature.com

    Melting glaciers cool the Southern Ocean

    3 Questions: Energy studies at MIT and the next generation of energy leaders