Deforestation in Tanzania’s East Usambaras:
Sticks, Carrots and the ‘Crowding Out’ effect

                     David Kaczan
                     M.Sc Student

                     Brent Swallow
                Professor and supervisor

                     Vic Adamowicz
               Professor and co-supervisor

                    Delia Catacutan
                  ICRAF co-supervisor
What is the ‘Crowding Out’ effect, and
why does it matter?


         Endogenous preferences Self determination

          Information conveyance         Framing
(Reyes, et al. 2006)

                                 The Context

                       •3300 km2 of sub montane and
                       montane forest

                       •A Biodiversity hotspot: “...the highest
                       ratio of endemic flora and fauna per
                       100 km2 of all biodiversity hotspots in
                       the world”

 •35 % of species endemic

 •Other important ecosystem functions: water
 provision, local climate
  (Reyes et al. 2006; Burgess et al. 2007)
Human Impact




               Reyes et al. (2007)
•60 percent of forest cover lost in East Usambaras

•26 percent of remaining forest has cardamom
Hall, 2006
Conservation efforts

•Forest reserves, Amani nature reserve, Derema
corridor

•What about incentive schemes (PES)?

•If so, how would you design such a scheme for
maximum effectiveness?
Intervention Points               No compensation?
> 100 percent compensation                                      (Knowledge transfer,
   (- altruism / pro social)                                          Credit)




                                  > 50 percent compensation
                                    (- altruism / pro social)
A research question



But: if PES is used, is there a danger that economic
incentives could ‘crowd out’ pre existing altruistic/pro
social incentives?
Approach 1: Experiments




  Precedents, mechanisms?
Experimental design: dictator game

                              Donated to
                              passive group
30 Tsh   20 Tsh     50 Tsh




50 Tsh   40 Tsh    20 Tsh
Dictator game: stylized PES
0.65
                                      Not Significant                     Significant
 0.6

0.55

 0.5

0.45

 0.4

0.35

 0.3

0.25

 0.2
       1   3   5   7     9       11     13      15      17    19     21      23     25   27

                                           Period
                       Control                               PES treatment
                       Control (average)                     PES (average)
Dictator game: stylized enforcement (high)
0.65
                                       Significant                      Not significant
 0.6

0.55

 0.5

0.45

 0.4

0.35

 0.3

0.25

 0.2
       1   3   5    7        9   11      13     15   17     19     21     23      25      27

                                          Period
                   Control                           Enforcement - high
                   Control (average)                 Enforcement - high (average)
Dictator game: stylized enforcement (low)
0.65
                                         Not Significant                       Not significant
 0.6

0.55

 0.5

0.45

 0.4

0.35

 0.3

0.25

 0.2
       1     3   5   7         9   11      13     15       17     19    21       23      25      27

                                            Period
                     Control                               Enforcement - low (average)
                     Control (average)                     Enforcement - low
Dictator game: stylized PES (collective)
0.65
                                       Significant                        Significant
 0.6

0.55

 0.5

0.45

 0.4

0.35

 0.3

0.25

 0.2
       1   3   5   7        9     11       13    15   17    19     21       23      25   27

                                            Period
                       Control                         PES - collective
                       Control (average)               PES collective (average)
Experiment II: Which of the payment options will you prefer?
                                  (n=194)
70%
            62%
60%
50%
40%
30%                         23%
20%
                                             11%
10%
                                                              2.5%
0%
      No payment but     Individual      Payment of      Disagree/Need
        provision for   payment of         Tsh2000         additional
           village        Tsh2000       transferred to       options
       infrastructure                       village
                                          committee




                  Vardhan, 2010 (unpublished)
Experiment I: Will your neigbor participate under these payment
                               options? (n=194)
120%
          97%
100%
                         82%        76%
80%                                              74%
                                                              64%

60%

40%

20%

 0%
          High       No mention High social   Payment      Low
       individual    of payment payment (Tsh mentioned individual
        payment                 1000) offered but not payment (Tsh
       (Tsh1000)                               offered 200 offered)
         offered




                    Vardhan, 2010 (unpublished)
In summary...

•Preliminary evidence suggests crowding out for
rewards, less so for enforcements

• Fact of enforcement may be more important
than its magnitude

•Contrary to other studies, but some similarities
with Vardhan?

•Collective payment unsuccessful
“First do no harm....”
With thanks…

to supervisors B. Swallow, V. Adamowicz and D. Catacutan;

field assistants F. Njilima, V. Mkongewa, Y. Mwaikio and A. Kajiru;

administrators at ICRAF Tanzania and Kenya;

and valuable, regular advice from H. Vihemaki, S. Rantala and R. Bullock

Deforestation in Tanzania's East Usambaras: sticks, carrots, and the crowding out effect

  • 2.
    Deforestation in Tanzania’sEast Usambaras: Sticks, Carrots and the ‘Crowding Out’ effect David Kaczan M.Sc Student Brent Swallow Professor and supervisor Vic Adamowicz Professor and co-supervisor Delia Catacutan ICRAF co-supervisor
  • 3.
    What is the‘Crowding Out’ effect, and why does it matter? Endogenous preferences Self determination Information conveyance Framing
  • 4.
    (Reyes, et al.2006) The Context •3300 km2 of sub montane and montane forest •A Biodiversity hotspot: “...the highest ratio of endemic flora and fauna per 100 km2 of all biodiversity hotspots in the world” •35 % of species endemic •Other important ecosystem functions: water provision, local climate (Reyes et al. 2006; Burgess et al. 2007)
  • 5.
    Human Impact Reyes et al. (2007)
  • 6.
    •60 percent offorest cover lost in East Usambaras •26 percent of remaining forest has cardamom
  • 7.
  • 8.
    Conservation efforts •Forest reserves,Amani nature reserve, Derema corridor •What about incentive schemes (PES)? •If so, how would you design such a scheme for maximum effectiveness?
  • 9.
    Intervention Points No compensation? > 100 percent compensation (Knowledge transfer, (- altruism / pro social) Credit) > 50 percent compensation (- altruism / pro social)
  • 10.
    A research question But:if PES is used, is there a danger that economic incentives could ‘crowd out’ pre existing altruistic/pro social incentives?
  • 11.
    Approach 1: Experiments Precedents, mechanisms?
  • 12.
    Experimental design: dictatorgame Donated to passive group 30 Tsh 20 Tsh 50 Tsh 50 Tsh 40 Tsh 20 Tsh
  • 14.
    Dictator game: stylizedPES 0.65 Not Significant Significant 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 Period Control PES treatment Control (average) PES (average)
  • 15.
    Dictator game: stylizedenforcement (high) 0.65 Significant Not significant 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 Period Control Enforcement - high Control (average) Enforcement - high (average)
  • 16.
    Dictator game: stylizedenforcement (low) 0.65 Not Significant Not significant 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 Period Control Enforcement - low (average) Control (average) Enforcement - low
  • 17.
    Dictator game: stylizedPES (collective) 0.65 Significant Significant 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 Period Control PES - collective Control (average) PES collective (average)
  • 18.
    Experiment II: Whichof the payment options will you prefer? (n=194) 70% 62% 60% 50% 40% 30% 23% 20% 11% 10% 2.5% 0% No payment but Individual Payment of Disagree/Need provision for payment of Tsh2000 additional village Tsh2000 transferred to options infrastructure village committee Vardhan, 2010 (unpublished)
  • 19.
    Experiment I: Willyour neigbor participate under these payment options? (n=194) 120% 97% 100% 82% 76% 80% 74% 64% 60% 40% 20% 0% High No mention High social Payment Low individual of payment payment (Tsh mentioned individual payment 1000) offered but not payment (Tsh (Tsh1000) offered 200 offered) offered Vardhan, 2010 (unpublished)
  • 20.
    In summary... •Preliminary evidencesuggests crowding out for rewards, less so for enforcements • Fact of enforcement may be more important than its magnitude •Contrary to other studies, but some similarities with Vardhan? •Collective payment unsuccessful
  • 21.
    “First do noharm....”
  • 22.
    With thanks… to supervisorsB. Swallow, V. Adamowicz and D. Catacutan; field assistants F. Njilima, V. Mkongewa, Y. Mwaikio and A. Kajiru; administrators at ICRAF Tanzania and Kenya; and valuable, regular advice from H. Vihemaki, S. Rantala and R. Bullock