Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Upcoming SlideShare
What to Upload to SlideShare
Next
Download to read offline and view in fullscreen.

Share

Lessons from four case studies using games for social learning in India

Download to read offline

By Thomas Falk, Wei Zhang, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, and Lara Bartels

  • Be the first to like this

Lessons from four case studies using games for social learning in India

  1. 1. Lessons Learnt from Four Case Studies Using Games for Social Learning in India 31st Triennial International Conference of Agricultural Economists (ICAE), 17 to 31 August 2021 Thomas Falk, Wei Zhang, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Lara Bartels
  2. 2. Experimental Games for Experiential Learning • Usually used to measure propensity to collective action • Can games be used to strengthen collective action? • How to design games for serving this purpose?
  3. 3. Outcomes of Games Game States Year # habitations Outcomes Groundwater pilot Andhra Pradesh 2013, 2014 17 Some effect on attitudes Communities more likely to adopt water registers & rules for groundwater * Surface water Rajasthan Madhya Pradesh 2016 2017 30 60 Communities more likely brought swelling water conflicts to the table and engaged in dam maintenance activities * Groundwater expansion Rajasthan Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh 2014- 2019 184 Total 3357 farmers adopted less water consumptive crops or varieties and irrigation scheduling to save water** Forest game Andhra Pradesh Rajasthan 2017/18 60 *Compared to randomly selected control communities where game has no been played **Compared to farmers’ reported behavior, prior to the games
  4. 4. Groundwater game • Games • Groups of 5 men or women • Choose crop A or B with different water use & returns • See effect on water table • Multiple years, with and without communication • Individual or community payments randomized Community debriefing • How this relates to own experiences and challenges farming • Lessons and insights the participants gained from the experience • Possible solutions
  5. 5. Surface Water Game • Players individually decide on contributions to dam maintenance; • Benefits from dam depend on total investment of all group members; • Sequential access of players according to player position (first player takes first, second takes from what is left and so on) • Community debriefing. Net return per ha in INR Water requirement per ha in cum Wheat 15000 5500 Gram 13000 3000
  6. 6. Key aspects of Game Design 1. Accuracy, complexity, and flexibility of the game framing. 2. Multi-player environment, communication, and group competition. 3. Participatory learning environments. 4. Incentivized payments.
  7. 7. Accuracy, complexity, and flexibility of the game framing Simple and abstract framing: • easy to facilitate, • supports general system understanding & activation of fairness norms. Complex and adapted framing: • more complex facilitation, • supports system understanding and activation of fairness norms, • stronger link between game experience and real life experience ➔ stronger effect on local governance?
  8. 8. Suitability tool
  9. 9. Multi-player environment, communication, and group competition. • Communication is key to social learning, • Revealing decisions intensifies discussions, • Letting two groups play simultaneously triggers discussion & intra-group cooperation in reaction to inter-group competition, • Rotate players increases reach of game within community, • Players mimic a role (e.g. non-cooperator) to trigger discussion, • Bringing conflicts on the table without having to point finger at anybody.
  10. 10. Participatory learning environments • Move from frontal teaching to providing a space for participatory processes • Community members find own solutions ➔ stronger acceptance of solutions ➔ solutions are adapted to specific context ➔ intrinsic motivations to effectively change behavior. • Challenge to facilitators ➔ limit input ➔ ask theory-based open questions ➔ trust that things emerge.
  11. 11. Incentivized payments
  12. 12. Conclusion • Guide practitioners in selecting the right tools for the right purpose • Experiments for research have different requirements than the ones for facilitating learning • Combining the conceptual thinking and applied experience of NGO, government, and academic partners was essential in the development of all four described games • Co-design processes create a feeling of ownership, increase trust and stimulate commitment among participants.
  13. 13. Thank you very much
  14. 14. Resources • Meinzen-Dick, R., M. Janssen, S. Kandikuppa, R. Chaturvedi, K. Rao and S. Theis. 2018. Playing Games to Save Water: Collective Action Games for Groundwater Management in Andhra Pradesh, India. World Development 107(July):40-53. access paper • Falk, T., Kumar, S., Srigiri, S., 2019. Experimental games for developing institutional capacity to manage common water infrastructure in India, Agricultural Water Management. 221: 260–269 • L Bartels, T Falk, B Vollan, V Duche, I Agrawal, S Kumar. 2019. The Impact of Incentivized Payments on Game Behavior and Social Learning in a Study on Water Management in Madhya Pradesh/IndiaXVII Biennial IASC Conference access paper • Falk, T., Zhang, W., Meinzen-Dick, R. S., & Bartels, L. (2021). Games for triggering collective change in natural resource management: A conceptual framework and insights from four cases from India. IFPRI discussion papers, (1995). access paper • Game manuals • groundwater game • surface water game

By Thomas Falk, Wei Zhang, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, and Lara Bartels

Views

Total views

28

On Slideshare

0

From embeds

0

Number of embeds

0

Actions

Downloads

0

Shares

0

Comments

0

Likes

0

×