Distributional preferences and donation behavior among marine resource users in Wakatobi, Indonesia

This study examines the effect of participants' distributional preferences on donations of money and time using a field experiment with marine resource users in Indonesia. Individuals participate in a real effort task to earn money and are faced with a donation decision under different treatments - monetary donation, time donation, monetary match, and time match. In the distributional preferences elicitation we classify individuals' preferences as benevolent, egalitarian, own-money-maximizing, and spiteful. We find that the different distributional preference types are a significant indicator of participants' donation behavior. The people showing spiteful preferences and those that focus only on maximizing their own payoff are less likely to donate any amount compared to those that make egalitarian choices. Furthermore, we find strong evidence that individuals that choose payoff structures characterized as "benevolent" donate a significantly higher amount compared to the egalitarian types. We analyze the results econometrically in two-stages to better understand the determining factors for whether an individual donates and those factors that determine how much one donates. Practical implications involve the segmentation of the target audience, not by the type of charity but by the mechanism which motivates their donation behavior.Diese Studie untersucht die Auswirkungen von Verteilungspräferenzen auf Geld- und Zeit-Spenden in einem Feldexperiment mit marinen Ressourcennutzern in Indonesien. Alle Teilnehmenden müssen zunächst eine einfache Arbeit verrichten. In der ersten Versuchsgruppe müssen sie im Anschluss der Arbeit entscheiden, welchen Anteil des verdienten Geldes sie gerne spenden möchten. In der zweiten Gruppe entscheiden sie kontinuierlich während der Arbeit, ob sie gerade für sich oder für den guten Zweck arbeiten wollen. Zwei weitere Versuchsgruppen bekommen jeweils eine Verdoppelung durch den Experimentator der Zeit- oder Geldspenden. Mit Hilfe monetärer Anreize erheben wir Verteilungspräferenzen und klassifizieren die Teilnehmer als wohlwollend, egalitär, eigennutzmaximierend und gehässig. Wir zeigen, dass die verschiedenen Verteilungspräferenzen ein wichtiger Indikator für das Spendenverhalten der Teilnehmer sind. "Gehässige" und "eigennutzorientierte" Menschen spenden signifikant weniger als "egalitäre" Menschen. "Wohlwollende" Menschen geben deutlich jedoch nicht signifikant mehr als "egalitäre". Die Daten werden mit einem zweistufigen ökonometrischen Verfahren analysiert, um zu verstehen, welche Charakteristika, dazu führen, dass eine Person spendet bzw. mehr spendet. Die Ergebnisse deuten darauf hin, dass eine Zielgruppe für Spendenkampagnen nicht zwangsläufig nach der Spendenorganisation ausgewählt werden sollte, sondern nach den Charakteristika des Spendenden

The challenge of self-governance in complex, globalizing economies: Collection of revised papers of a PhD seminar

Table of Contents: Floriane Clement: A Multi-Scale Analysis of Institutions, Interestsand Beliefs Associated With Forest Policies. Insights from NorthernVietnam; Katrin Daedlow, Robert Arlinghaus, Volker Beckmann: Collective Choice on Different Spatial Levels and over Time: A Framework to Analyze Adaptation and Sustainability of Common Pool Resource Management in German Recreational Fisheries (GRF); Eva Ebenhöh: Designing Agent-Based Models of Water Management Regimes Using the IAD Framework; Louisa Evans: Local Decision-Making Processes for Governance of Marine Social-Ecological Systems; Adam Henry: Simulating the Evolution of Policy-Relevant Beliefs: Can Rational Learning Lead to Advocacy Coalitions?; Alexander Lenger: Constitutional Ecological Economics; Achim Schlüter: Institutional Change, Rationalities and Thick Description; Christine Werthmann: Water Management in Seasonal Floodplains of the Mekong Delta; Stefan Ambec, Carine Sebi: Acceptable Regulations to Reduce Resource Extraction with Heterogeneous Costs; Bjorn Vollan: What Reciprocity? – The Impact of Culture and Sociopolitical Background on Trust Games in Namibia and South Afric

Disciplinary diversity in marine sciences: the urgent case for an integration of research

Recent events and trends in international relations are making it necessary for scientists to design their projects in ways that can integrate disciplinary perspectives and learn how to communicate their results in governance processes. Some examples of settings in which such skills would be needed are the debates about the political and legal relevance of the “Anthropocene” as a concept, the establishment and implementation of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the recent International Court of Justice’s decision on what constitutes “scientific purpose” under the Whaling Convention, and the ongoing international efforts to regulate deep seabed mining activities. These events reveal an acceleration of growing environmental, distributional, and geostrategic conflicts over ocean resources which are changing the character of marine research. For some time now marine sciences have recognized the interdependence of social and ecological systems and the cumulative effects of multiple environmental pressures. In addition, we observe that the relationship between science and policymaking is rapidly changing in a process which we refer to here as the internationalization of knowledge, and that scientific research activities and results are progressively being internationally contested. Altogether these developments constitute extrinsic constraints that render transcending disciplinary boundaries a conditio sine qua non for future marine research. Better comprehension of these trends and their implications may help us to understand marine science’s functioning in the near future, particularly the relationship between disciplines involve

Can the Indonesian Collective Action Norm of Gotong-Royong Be Strengthened with Economic Incentives? Comparing the Implementation of an Aquaculture Irrigation Policy Program

The Indonesian multi-level governmental program (PITAP) is a participatory pond irrigation management policy established by the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. It aims to catalyze the rehabilitation of irrigation canals to improve water access for small-scale aquaculture farmers. In PITAP, traditional aquaculture farmers are incentivized with government funding to create community-based co-management groups (POKLINA), to maintain the self-governance of their irrigation canals. The logic of PITAP is to encourage POKLINA farmers to rehabilitate their irrigation canals through subsidized labor payments that are coupled with strengthening the strong cultural norm of mutual assistance (i.e., collective action) within Indonesian society called Gotong-Royong. PITAP aims to revitalize Gotong-Royong through subsidized labor compensation with the hope that when the subsidy program is over, Gotong-Royong will be revitalized without external support. In this study, we compare and analyze four villages on Lombok, Indonesia, that participated in PITAP program in 2020 and 2021. The study is supported with empirical data using various qualitative data collection methods, including interviews, participant observations, and the collection of policy documents. We further use the Social-Ecological System Framework (SESF) as a diagnostic tool to structure the data collection process and analysis. Findings indicate that different variables hinder and enable collective action in the four villages, leading to different PITAP program outcomes. The likely reason for this, suggested by our findings, is that each village has different social and ecological conditions that influence intrinsic motivation for collective action. PITAP program either crowds out intrinsic motivation under some conditions or crowds it in under others. This suggests the need to consider contextual adaptations in policy design and implementation to improve outcomes better

Multiple drivers of local (non-) compliance in community-based marine resource management: Case studies from the South Pacific

The outcomes of marine conservation and related management interventions depend to a large extent on people's compliance with these rule systems. In the South Pacific, community-based marine resource management (CBMRM) has gained wide recognition as a strategy for the sustainable management of marine resources. In current practice, CBMRM initiatives often build upon customary forms of marine governance, integrating scientific advice and management principles in collaboration with external partners. However, diverse socio-economic developments as well as limited legal mandates can challenge these approaches. Compliance with and effective (legally-backed) enforcement of local management strategies constitute a growing challenge for communities—often resulting in considerable impact on the success or failure of CBMRM. Marine management arrangements are highly dynamic over time, and similarly compliance with rule systems tends to change depending on context. Understanding the factors contributing to (non-) compliance in a given setting is key to the design and function of adaptive management approaches. Yet, few empirical studies have looked in depth into the dynamics around local (non-) compliance with local marine tenure rules under the transforming management arrangements. Using two case studies from Solomon Islands and Fiji, we investigate what drives local (non-) compliance with CBMRM and what hinders or supports its effective enforcement. The case studies reveal that non-compliance is mainly driven by: (1) diminishing perceived legitimacy of local rules and rule-makers; (2) increased incentives to break rules due to market access and/ or lack of alternative income; and (3) relatively weak enforcement of local rules (i.e., low perceptions of risk from sanctions for rule-breaking). These drivers do not stand alone but can act together and add up to impair effective management. We further analyze how enforcement of CBMRM is challenged through a range of institutional; socio-cultural and technical/financial constraints, which are in parts a result of the dynamism and ongoing transformations of management arrangements. Our study underlines the importance of better understanding and contextualizing marine resource management processes under dynamic conditions for an improved understanding of compliance in a particular setting

Paradox incentive structures and rules governing sharing of coastal and marine data in Kenya and Tanzania: Lessons for the Western Indian Ocean

Comprehensive and timely data-sharing is essential for effective ocean governance. This institutional analysis investigates pervasive data-sharing barriers in Kenya and Tanzania, using a collective action perspective. Existing data-sharing rules and regulations are examined in respect to boundaries, contextuality and incentive structures, compliance and settlement mechanisms, and integration across scales. Findings show that current institutional configurations create insufficient or incoherent incentives, simultaneously reducing and reproducing sharing barriers. Regional harmonisation efforts and strategically aligned data-sharing institutions are still underdeveloped. This article discusses proposals to increase capacities and incentives for data-sharing, as well as the limitations of the chosen analytical framework. The debate is extended to aspects beyond institutional issues, i.e., structural data-sharing barriers or ethical concerns. Key recommendations include the establishment of more compelling incentives structures for data-sharing, increased funding of capacity-building and sharing infrastructure, and further awareness creation on the importance of data-sharing

Making the UN Ocean Decade work? The potential for, and challenges of, transdisciplinary research and real‐world laboratories for building towards ocean solutions

1. Due to the strong interconnectedness between the ocean and our societies worldwide, improved ocean governance is essential for sustainable development in the context of the UN Ocean Decade. However, a multitude of different perspectives—ecological, societal, political, economic—and relations between these have to be understood and taken into consideration to foster transformative pathways towards marine sustainability. 2. A core challenge that we are facing is that the ‘right’ response to complex societal issues cannot be known beforehand as abilities to predict complex systems are limited. Consequently, societal transformation is necessarily a journey towards the unknown and therefore requires experimental approaches that must enable the involvement of everyone with stakes in the future of our marine environment and its resources. 3. A promising transdisciplinary research method that fulfils both criteria—being participatory and experimental—are real-world laboratories. Here, we discuss how real-world labs can serve as an operational framework in the context of the Ocean Decade by facilitating and guiding successful knowledge exchange at the interface of science and society. The core element of real-world labs is transdisciplinary experimentation to jointly develop potential strategies leading to targeted real-world interventions, essential for achieving the proposed ‘Decade Outcomes’. 4. The authors specifically illustrate how deploying the concept of real-world labs can be advantageous when having to deal with multiple, overlapping challenges in the context of ocean governance and the blue economy. 5. Altogether, we offer a first major contribution to synthesizing knowledge on the potentials of marine real-world labs, considering how they act as a way of exploring options for sustainable ocean futures. Indeed, in the marine context, real-world labs are still under-explored but are a tangible way for addressing the societal challenges of working towards sustainability transformations over the coming UN Ocean Decade and beyond.BMBF CREATEBMBF MariscoVolkswagen Foundation ‘Niedersächsisches Vorab’BMBF ‘Innovation and structural change—WIR!’Peer Reviewe

Privatizing the commons: new approaches need broader evaluative criteria for sustainability

Privatization is, since Hardin, often promoted as a solution to many natural resource management challenges, particularly in common-pool resource systems. However, novel forms of privatization are being implemented in unexamined ways. In this article we explore how privatization affects natural resource management from the perspective of multi-dimensional social-ecological systems. We critique the notion that privatization is desirable due to its pure efficiency, and argue that efficiency must be relative to achieving other normative societal goals, in particular, sustainability. While sustainability outcomes often cannot be fully actualized, the processes through which privatization attempts to achieve them are more tangible criteria. First, we draw on (1) distributional and (2) procedural justice as normative societal goals to assess effectiveness of different forms of privatization. Second, we analyze the broader implications of privatization for social-ecological system functioning considering (3) path dependency and (4) spillover effects. We apply these four concepts to examine three different cases of privatization: eco-certification in fisheries, seed patents in agriculture and property rights in rangelands. We argue that the evaluative criteria for the success of privatization are often oversimplified, and highlight how privatization can influence social-ecological systems and the achievement of normative goals in largely unexamined ways

Five social science intervention areas for ocean sustainability initiatives

Ocean sustainability initiatives – in research, policy, management and development – will be more effective in delivering comprehensive benefits when they proactively engage with, invest in and use social knowledge. We synthesize five intervention areas for social engagement and collaboration with marine social scientists, and in doing so we appeal to all ocean science disciplines and non-academics working in ocean initiatives in industry, government, funding agencies and civil society. The five social intervention areas are: (1) Using ethics to guide decision-making, (2) Improving governance, (3) Aligning human behavior with goals and values, (4) Addressing impacts on people, and (5) Building transdisciplinary partnerships and co-producing sustainability transformation pathways. These focal areas can guide the four phases of most ocean sustainability initiatives (Intention, Design, Implementation, Evaluation) to improve social benefits and avoid harm. Early integration of social knowledge from the five areas during intention setting and design phases offers the deepest potential for delivering benefits. Later stage collaborations can leverage opportunities in existing projects to reflect and learn while improving impact assessments, transparency and reporting for future activities