We are excited to announce that the repository will soon undergo an upgrade, featuring a new look and feel along with several enhanced features to improve your experience. Please be on the lookout for further updates and announcements regarding the launch date. We appreciate your support and look forward to unveiling the improved platform soon.
dc.contributor.author | Ntuli, Herbert![]() |
|
dc.contributor.author | Crepin, Anne‑Sophie![]() |
|
dc.contributor.author | Schill, Caroline![]() |
|
dc.contributor.author | Muchapondwa, Edwin![]() |
|
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-05-28T05:36:04Z | |
dc.date.available | 2024-05-28T05:36:04Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2023-03 | |
dc.description.abstract | We investigate the behavioural responses of natural common-pool resource users to three policy interventions—sanctioned quotas, information provisioning, and a combination of both. We focus on situations in which users find utility in multiple resources (pastures and wild animal stocks) that all stem from the same ecosystem with complex dynamics, and management could trigger a regime shift, drastically altering resource regrowth. We performed a framed field experiment with 384 villagers from communities managing common- pool wildlife in Zimbabwe. We find that user groups are likely to manage these natural resources more efficiently when facing a policy intervention (either a sanctioned quota, receiving information about a drastic drop in the stocks’ regrowth below a threshold, or a combination of both), compared to groups facing no intervention. A sanctioned quota is likely to perform better than providing information about the existence of a threshold. However, having information about the threshold also leads to higher efficiency and fewer depletion cases, compared to a situation without any intervention. The main contribution of this study is to provide insights that can inform policymakers and development practitioners about the performance of concrete and feasible policy interventions for community wildlife conservation in Southern Africa. | en_US |
dc.description.department | Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development | en_US |
dc.description.librarian | am2024 | en_US |
dc.description.sdg | SDG-15:Life on land | en_US |
dc.description.sponsorship | The Environment for Development Initiative, the Center for Collective Action Research (University of Gothenburg), Economic Research Southern Africa (ERSA), a Mäler Scholarship, Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics (at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences), the Swedish Research Council and the IKEA foundation. Open access funding provided by University of Cape Town. | en_US |
dc.description.uri | https://link.springer.com/journal/10640 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Ntuli, H., Crepin, A-S., Schill, C. et al. 2023, 'Sanctioned quotas versus information provisioning for community wildlife conservation in Zimbabwe : a framed field experiment approach', Environmental and Resource Economics, vol. 84, pp. 775-823. https://DOI.org/10.1007/s10640-023-00759-5. | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0924-6460 (print) | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1573-1502 (online) | |
dc.identifier.other | 10.1007/s10640-023-00759-5 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2263/96253 | |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.publisher | Springer | en_US |
dc.rights | © The Author(s) 2023. Open Access. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. | en_US |
dc.subject | Common-pool resources | en_US |
dc.subject | Behavioural experiments | en_US |
dc.subject | Regime shifts | en_US |
dc.subject | Information | en_US |
dc.subject | Sanctioned quota | en_US |
dc.subject | Thresholds | en_US |
dc.subject | Southern Africa | en_US |
dc.subject | Elephants (Loxodonta africana) | en_US |
dc.subject | Zimbabwe | en_US |
dc.subject | SDG-15: Life on land | en_US |
dc.title | Sanctioned quotas versus information provisioning for community wildlife conservation in Zimbabwe : a framed field experiment approach | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |