As resource users interact and impose externalities onto each other, institutions are needed to coordinate resource use, create trust, and provide incentives for sustainable management. Coordinated collective action can play a key role in enabling communities to manage natural resources more sustainably. But when such collective action is not present, what can be done to foster it? There is growing awareness that the governance of natural resources has to be adapted to the specific context. Interventions are often implemented at small scale, and the potential to scale up facilitation intensive approaches is limited. Moreover, sustainable resource management frequently fails to emerge or breaks down after the project ends. To date, researchers have typically used behavioral games to study cooperation patterns of communities. Recently, games have been adapted as learning and stakeholder engagement tools to improve management of the commons, strengthen self-regulation of resource use, and enhance constructive interactions among resource users. Combining games with other interventions and tools and facilitated discussions has been proposed as a promising approach to improve collective action institutions through experiential learning — a classic approach in education. This paper reviews existing literature and synthesizes lessons learned from a series of studies testing the use of behavioral games for institutional capacity development in India. We conclude that, while games alone will not be the solution to all natural resource management challenges games can provide a structured and therefore replicable approach for influencing behavior. They can also improve system understanding, raise awareness, influence norms, facilitate dialogue, train for crisis response, and increase legitimacy of decisions.

The purpose of this review is to assess the extent to which the research outputs of Flagship 5 of the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM5) have been used to inform decisions and behaviors of representatives of government organizations, development agencies, researchers, donors, private firms, nongovernment organizations, and other users. The review addresses seven questions: 1. Who uses the outputs of PIM5, including general publications, journal articles, briefs, and other products? 2. Who uses the tools and games created and disseminated by the Flagship researchers? 3. Who attends the outreach events and capacity-building workshops organized by researchers involved in the Flagship? 4. How are the research outputs being used? What policies, programs, and strategies have been informed, and how? 5. For selected cases, what is the research-to-uptake process and how we can learn from it? 6. What are the key cases and impact pathways identified, and what can we learn from them? What are the promising pathways that we should explore further in the final 18 months of the program? 7. What are the gaps and missed opportunities for impact that we should explore in the final months of the program, or that should be considered in the One CGIAR? To address these questions, the review relied on bibliographic references; document download data; personal interviews; focus group discussions; and three different online surveys targeting researchers and their partners, as well as different types of end users. We used both quantitative and qualitative techniques to analyze these data. In this summary, we selectively discuss the review’s most important findings and recommendations.

This paper presents results from a framed field experiment in which participants make decisions about extraction of a common-pool resource, a community forest. The experiment was designed and piloted as both a research activity and an experiential learning intervention during 2017-2018 with 120 groups of resource users (split by gender) from 60 habitations in two Indian states, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan. We examine whether local beliefs and norms about community forest, gender of participants, within-experiment treatments (non-communication, communication, and optional election of institutional arrangements (rules)) and remuneration methods affect harvest behaviour and groups’ tendency to cooperate. Furthermore, we explore whether the experiment and subsequent community debriefing had learning effects. Results reveal a “weak” Nash Equilibrium in which participants harvested substantially less than the Nash prediction even in the absence of communication, a phenomenon stronger for male than female participants in both states. For male groups in both states, both communication and optional rule election are associated with lower group harvest per round, as compared to the reference non-communication game. For female groups in both states, however, communication itself did not significantly slow down resource depletion; but the introduction of optional rule election did reduce harvest amounts. For both men and women in Andhra Pradesh and men in Rajasthan, incentivized payments to individual participants significantly lowered group harvest, relative to community flat payment, suggesting a possible “crowding-in” effect on pro-social norms. Despite the generally positive memory of the activity, reported actual changes are limited. This may be due to the lack of follow-up with the communities between the experiment and the revisit. The fact that many of the communities already have a good understanding of the importance of the relationships between (not) cutting trees and the ecosystem services from forests, with rules and strong internal norms against cutting that go beyond the felling of trees in the game, may have also meant that the game did not have as much to add. Findings have methodological and practical implications for designing behavioral intervention programs to improve common-pool resource governance.

Tropentag is the largest interdisciplinary conference in Europe focusing on development- oriented research in the fields of tropical and subtropical agriculture, food security, natural resource management and rural development. It is clear that a just and sustainable transformation of our food systems is urgently needed: climate change, conflicts, rising food and fuel prices, and growing social and income inequalities are exacerbating the vulnerabilities of our food systems. The theme invites diverse contributions that explore different pathways for transforming food systems and the trade-offs and synergies involved, ranging from more technical solutions, such as climate-smart agriculture and biofortified crops, to more systematic solutions for changing the underlying relationships of our food systems, such as agroecology and alternative food networks.

Humans have long neglected to fully consider the impact of their behaviour on the environment. From excessive consumption of fossil fuels and natural resources to pollution, waste disposal, and, in more recent years, climate change, most people and institutions lack a clear understanding of the environmental consequences of their actions. The new field of behavioural environmental economics seeks to address this by applying the framework of behavioural economics to environmental issues, thereby rationalizing unexplained puzzles and providing a more realistic account of individual behaviour. This book provides a complete and rigorous overview of environmental topics that may be addressed and, in many instances, better understood by integrating a behavioural approach. This volume features state-of-the-art research on this topic by influential scholars in behavioural and environmental economics, focussing on the effects of psychological, social and cognitive factors on the decision-making process. It presents research performed using different methods and data collection mechanisms (e.g. laboratory experiments, field experiments, natural experiments, online surveys) on a variety of environmental topics (e.g. sustainability, natural resources). This book is a comprehensive and innovative tool for researchers and students interested in the behavioural economics of the environment and in the design of policy interventions aimed at reducing the human impact on the environment.

How could having farmers play experiential games contribute to improving groundwater governance? These games are an example of an innovative procedure, a policy instrument or institutional tool, which those involved in improving groundwater governance could use to understand their problems and opportunities; consider and possibly agree on norms or rules that might avoid aquifer depletion, and create shared gains that use water more productively. Institutional tools for groundwater governance could help deal with complex nexus linkages and achieve gains such as transitions to solar-powered pumping, aquifer recharge and storage to buffer against drought, and protecting and regenerating ecosystems. The concept of a groundwater governance toolbox offers a metaphor for thinking about the variety of policy instruments available and how they might be chosen, combined, and adapted to create customized toolkits to solve problems and achieve gains in specific contexts. New policies are typically layered on top of existing sets of institutions that govern relationships between people and water. This makes it crucial to understand existing knowledge and institutions and how those may interact with institutional changes. The thesis of the paper is that institutional tools need to be combined and crafted to fit contexts, including political economy constraints, opportunities, and solutions.