Sharing the gains in forest managementInsights from the application of principles of collective action

  1. Alló, Maria
  2. Loureiro, Maria L.
Journal:
Forest systems

ISSN: 2171-5068

Year of publication: 2018

Volume: 27

Issue: 2

Type: Article

DOI: 10.5424/FS/2018272-13078 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Forest systems

Abstract

Aim of study: To analyze the factors that motivate the sharing of a contribution to a common pool resource (CPR).Area of study: We obtained data from Galicia communal forests during 2013-2014. Material and methods: A survey among forest owners in which questions about decisions, mimicking those in public good games, were included. In addition, the compliance with the principles of collective action (PCA), and their implications in the management of CPR were tested.Main results: PCA are not functioning perfectly in our sample of communal forest owners. In line with previous literature, results suggest that individuals are willing to share an important amount of endowment in a CPR. Examining the role that PCA play in individuals’ decisions, it was observable that when owners face the sharing of an endowment, the monitoring, conflict resolution mechanism and minimal recognition of rights imply more cooperative results. Current communal forests should promote a better application of these PCA in order to obtain a more cooperative behavior from their members.Research highlights: Communal forest owners are quite generous according to the results obtained. In addition, it has also been found that the endowment is an important factor to consider, while social aspects represented through the PCA also matter when explaining sharing decisions. The present study may be useful in order to promote stronger cooperation in local communities.

Bibliographic References

  • Alló M, Loureiro ML, 2016. Evaluating the fulfilment of the principles of collective action in practice: A case study from Galicia (NW Spain). Forest Policy Econ 73: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.08.002
  • Andersen S, Ertac S, Gneezy U, Hoffman M, List JA, 2011. Stakes matter in ultimatum games. Am Econ Rev 101: 3427-3439. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.7.3427
  • Anderson SP, Goeree JK, Holt CA, 1998. A theoretical analysis of altruism and decision error in public good games. J Public Econ 70: 297-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(98)00035-8
  • Andreoni J, 1995. Cooperation in public goods experiments: kindness or confusion? Am Econ Rev 85(4): 891-904.
  • Balboa X, Besteiro B, Fernández X, Fernández L, Jordán M, López E, Soto D, Viso, P, 2006. Os montes veciñais en man común: o patrimonio silente. Natureza, economía, identidade e democracia na Galicia rural. Vigo: Edicións Xerais de Galicia.
  • Bechtel MM, Scheve KF, 2014. Public goods, reciprocity and the causal effect of expected cooperation in representative samples. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9406/d8993f6bf764b91fa138726786e8a0c26276.pdf?_ga=2.132334474.528702125.1531734437-374087474.1531734437 [16 July 2018]
  • Bethwaite J, Tompkinson P, 1996. The ultimatum game and non-selfish utility functions. J Econ Psychol 17: 259-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4870(96)00006-2
  • BOE, 1968. Law 52/1968, of 29th July of Communal forests. Boletin Oficial del Estado (Spain) No. 181, 27/07/1968.
  • BOE, 2012. Law 7/2012, of 28th June of Galician forests. Boletin Oficial del Estado (Spain) No. 217, 08/09/2012.
  • Braaten RH, 2014. Land rights and community cooperation public goods experiment from Peru. World Dev 61: 127-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.04.002
  • Breusch T, Pagan A, 1979. A simple test for heteroskedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica 47: 1287-1294. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911963
  • Caballero G, 2014. Community based forest management institutions in the Galician communal forests: a new institutional approach. Forest Policy Econ 50: 347-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.07.013
  • Cardenas JC, Ostrom E, 2004. What do people bring into the game? Experiments in the field about cooperation in the commons. Agricultural Systems 82(3): 307-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2004.07.008
  • Cardenas JC, 2011. Social norms and behavior in the local commons as seen through the lens of field experiments. Environ Resour Econ 48: 451-485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9452-8
  • Chaudhuri A, 2011. Sustaining cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments: a selective survey of the literature. Exp Econ 14: 47-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-010-9257-1
  • Fehr E, Fischbacher U, 2003. The nature of human altruism. Nature 425:785-791. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02043
  • Fehr E, Gintis H, 2007. Human motivation and social cooperation: experimental and analytical foundations. Annu Rev Sociol 33: 43-64. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131812
  • Fischbacher U, Gächter S, Fehr E, 2001. Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Econ Lett 71: 397-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00394-9
  • Gächter S, Herrmann B, 2006. Human cooperation from an economic perspective. Cooperation in Primates and Humans: 279-301.
  • Gómez-Vázquez I, Álvarez-Álvarez P, Marey-Pérez MF, 2009. Conflicts as enhancers or barriers to the manageme gnt of privately owned common land: a method to analyze the role of conflicts on a regional basis. Forest Policy Econ 11: 617-627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2009.09.001
  • Hardin G, 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243-1248. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
  • Janssen MA, Bousquet F, Cardenas JC, Castillo D, Worrapimphon K, 2013. Breaking the elected rules in a field experiment on forestry resources. Ecol Econ 90, 132-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.03.012
  • Ledyard JO, 1995. Public goods: a survey of experimental research. In: Handbook of experimental economics; Kagel J, Roth AE (eds). pp: 111-194. New York: Princeton University Press.
  • Ostrom E, 1990. Governing the commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 280 pp. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763
  • Ostrom E, Walker J, Gardner R, 1992. Covenants with and without a sword: self-governance is possible. Am Polit Sci Rev 86(2): 404-417. https://doi.org/10.2307/1964229
  • Rodríguez-Cebreiro D, Aboal Viñas J, Picos Martín J, 2017. Análisis de los ingresos de montes vecinales en mano común de Galicia y su reinversión. Proc VII Congreso Forestal Español, Cáceres (Spain), June 26-30. pp: 1-10.
  • Rustagi D, Engel S, Kosfeld M, 2010. Conditional cooperation and costly monitoring explain success in forest common management. Science 330, 961-965. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193649
  • Stoop J, Noussair CN, van Soest D, 2012. From the lab to the field: cooperation among fishermen. J Polit Econ 120(6): 1027-1056. https://doi.org/10.1086/669253
  • Xunta de Galicia, 2014. Consellería do Medio Rural e do Mar. Sector Forestal. http://www.medioruralemar.xunta.es/es/areas/forestal/presentacion/ [16 July 2018]
Data source: Dialnet