Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2402.18047

Prosocial and Financial Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation: A Field Experiment Using a Smartphone App

Abstract

Ascertaining the number, type, and location of plant, insect, and animal species is essential for biodiversity conservation. However, comprehensively monitoring the situation only through public fixed-point surveys is challenging, and therefore information voluntarily provided by citizens assists in ascertaining the species distribution. To effectively encourage the citizens' data sharing behavior, this study proposed a prosocial incentive scheme in which, if they provide species information, donations are made to activities for saving endangered species. We conducted a field experiment with users (N=830) of a widely-used Japanese smartphone app to which they post species photos and measured the incentive's effect on their posting behavior. In addition, we measured the effect of a financial incentive scheme that provides monetary rewards for posting species photos and compared the two incentives' effects. The analyses revealed that while the prosocial incentive did not increase the number of posts on average, it did change the contents of posts, increasing the proportion of posts on rare species. On the contrary, the financial incentive statistically significantly increased the number of posts, in particular, on less rare and invasive species. Our findings suggest that the prosocial and financial incentives could stimulate different motivations and encourage different posting behaviors.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Shusaku Sasaki, Takahiro Kubo, Shodai Kitano. 2024-02-28. Prosocial and Financial Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation: A Field Experiment Using a Smartphone App. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.18047

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN