No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Heterogeneous interests and monetary payments for afforestation: findings from a framed field experiment (FFE) in Uttara Kannada, India
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 January 2026
Abstract
Afforestation and forest restoration have been central to emerging global strategies for climate change mitigation. Based on a framed field experiment (FFE) conducted in the Uttara Kannada region in Karnataka, India, this study investigates whether monetary incentives could effectively promote afforestation and what the likely distributional consequences are. The FFE set-up was designed to provide respondents with choices on planting native or commercial trees in their village common forest. The native trees were associated with higher risk of survival compared to commercial trees. They also provided a mix of monetary and non-monetary benefits which differed across three variations in the experimental design. We find that monetary payments for planting native species worked better when combined with non-monetary benefits. Also, private tenurial rights mediated responses to monetary incentives. The results highlight how heterogeneous interests within the community could play an important role in determining effectiveness and distributional outcomes of afforestation policy.
Keywords
JEL classification
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press.
References
Ahlheim, M and Neef, A (2006) Payments for environmental services, tenure security and environmental valuation: concepts and policies towards a better environment. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 45, 303–317.Google Scholar
Alix-Garcia, J and Wolff, H (2014) Payment for ecosystem services from forests. Annual Review Resource Economics 6, 361–380.10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersson, KP, Cook, NJ, Grillos, T, Lopez, MC, Salk, CF, Wright, GD and Mwangi, E (2018) Experimental evidence on payments for forest commons conservation. Nature Sustainability 1, 128–135.10.1038/s41893-018-0034-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, A and Jones, K (2015) Explaining fixed effects: random effects modeling of time-series cross-sectional and panel data. Political Science Research and Methods 3, 133–153.10.1017/psrm.2014.7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhat, DM and Gadgil, M (1993) ‘Soppina Bettas’ – forests in support of horticulture. In Brandl, M (ed.), Proceedings of the IUFRO Forest History Group Meeting on Peasant Forestry 2–5 September 1991. Freiburg: Forstliche Versuchs-und Forschungsanstalt, pp. 37–43.Google Scholar
Bhat, DM, Naik, MB, Patagar, SG, Hegde, GT, Kanade, YG, Hegde, GN, Shastri, CM, Shetti, DM and Furtado, RM (2000) Forest dynamics in tropical rain forests of Uttara Kannada district in Western Ghats, India. Current Science 79, 975–985.Google Scholar
Blundo-Canto, G, Bax, V, Quintero, M, Cruz-Garcia, GS, Groeneveld, RA and Perez-Marulanda, L (2018) The different dimensions of livelihood impacts of payments for environmental services (PES) schemes: a systematic review. Ecological Economics 149, 160–183.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.03.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulte, EH, Lipper, L, Stringer, R and Zilberman, D (2008) Payments for ecosystem services and poverty reduction: concepts, issues, and empirical perspectives. Environment and Development Economics 13, 245–254.10.1017/S1355770X08004348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvet-Mir, L, Corbera, E, Martin, A, Fisher, J and Gross-Camp, N (2015) Payments for ecosystem services in the tropics: a closer look at effectiveness and equity. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14, 150–162.10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, S, Xia, C, Suo, X and Wei, Z (2021) A framework for calculating the net benefits of ecological restoration programs in China. Ecosystem Services 50, 101325.10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardenas, JC, Stranlund, J and Willis, C (2000) Local environmental control and institutional crowding-out. World Development 28, 1719–1733.10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00055-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, EA, Schultz, B, Ramprasad, V, Fischer, H, Rana, P, Filippi, AM, Gunerlap, B, Ma, A, Solorzano, CR, Guleria, V, Rana, R and Fleischman, F (2021) Limited effects of tree planting on forest canopy cover and rural livelihoods in Northern India. Nature Sustainability 4, 997–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieleman, JL and Templin, T (2014) Random-effects, fixed-effects and the within-between specification for clustered data in observational health studies: a simulation study. PloS One 9, e110257.10.1371/journal.pone.0110257CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duong, NTB and de Groot, WT (2018) Distributional risk in PES: exploring the concept in the Payment for Environmental Forest Services program, Vietnam. Forest Policy and Economics 92, 22–32.10.1016/j.forpol.2018.03.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, S, Pagiola, S and Wunder, S (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecological Economics 65, 663–674.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleischman, F, Basant, S, Chhatre, A, Coleman, EA, Fischer, HW, Gupta, D, Güneralp, B, Kashwan, P, Khatri, D, Muscarella, R, Powers, JS, Ramprasad, V, Rana, P, Rodriguez Solorzano, C and Veldman, JW (2020) Pitfalls of tree planting show why we need people-centered natural climate solutions. BioScience 70, 947–950.Google Scholar
Gatiso, TT, Vollan, B, Vimal, R and Kühl, HS (2018) If possible, incentivize individuals not groups: evidence from lab‐in‐the‐field experiments on forest conservation in Rural Uganda. Conservation Letters 11, e12387.10.1111/conl.12387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Govindarajulu, D (2023) India was a tree planting laboratory for 200 years – Here are the results. The Conversation, 10 August 2023. Available at https://theconversation.com/india-was-a-tree-planting-laboratory-for-200-years-here-are-the-results-211226.10.64628/AB.tyxq7sxm3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griscom, BW, Adams, J, Ellis, PW, Houghton, RA, Lomax, G, Miteva, DA, Schlesinger, WH, Shoch, D, Siikamäki, JV, Smith, P, Woodbury, P, Zganjar, C, Blackman, A, Campari, J, Conant, RT, Delgado, C, Elias, P, Gopalakrishna, T, Hamsik, MR, Herrero, M, Kiesecker, J, Landis, E, Laestadius, L, Leavitt, SM, Minnemeyer, S, Polasky, S, Potapov, P, Putz, FE, Sanderman, J, Silvius, M, Wollenberg, E, and Fargione, J (2017) Natural climate solutions. PNAS 114, 11645–11650.10.1073/pnas.1710465114CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Handberg, ØN and Angelsen, A (2015) Experimental tests of tropical forest conservation measures. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 118, 346–359.10.1016/j.jebo.2015.03.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, GW and List, JA (2004) Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature 42, 1009–1055.10.1257/0022051043004577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegde, R, Bull, GQ, Wunder, S and Kozak, RA (2015) Household participation in a payments for environmental services programme: the Nhambita Forest Carbon Project (Mozambique). Environment and Development Economics 20, 611–629.10.1017/S1355770X14000631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegde, SS and Hegde, RS (2013) Making ‘betta’ better. Deccan Herald. https://www.deccanherald.com/content/318027/making-betta-better.html (accessed 11 March 2013).Google Scholar
Holland, MB, de Koning, F, Morales, M, Naughton Treves, L, Robinson, BE and Suárez, L (2014) Complex tenure and deforestation: implications for conservation incentives in the Ecuadorian Amazon. World Development 55, 21–36.10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICIMOD (2015) Proceedings of the National Workshop on Payment for Ecosystem Services; Opportunities and Challenges in Nepal. 18–19 September 2014. Kathmandu, Nepal: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD). Available at https://lib.icimod.org/records/wxmbk-30068.Google Scholar
IPCC (2018) Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Pre-industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty. Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pörtner H-O, Roberts D, Skea J, Shukla PR, Pirani A, Moufouma-Okia W, Péan C, Pidcock R, Connors S, Matthews JBR, Chen Y, Zhou X, Gomis MI, Lonnoy E, Maycock T, Tignor M and Waterfield T (eds). Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Izquierdo‐Tort, S, Corbera, E, Martin, A, Lillo, JC and Dupras, J (2022) Contradictory distributive principles and land tenure govern benefit-sharing of payments for ecosystem services (PES) in Chiapas, Mexico. Environmental Research Letters 17, 055009.10.1088/1748-9326/ac6686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jack, BK, Jayachandran, S, Kala, N and Pande, R (2025) Money (not) to burn: payments for ecosystem services to reduce crop residue burning. American Economic Review: Insights 7, 39–55.Google Scholar
Kamble, VK, Brewer, D and Oliver, ME (2025) Is there a tradeoff between forest expansion and agriculture? Evidence from India. Land Economics 101, 304–329. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.101.3.022924-0020RCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knox, A, Caron, C, Miner, J and Goldstein, A (2011) Land tenure and payment for environmental services. Challenges and opportunities for REDD. Land Tenure Journal 2, 17–56.Google Scholar
Kolinjivadi, V, Hecken, GV and Merlet, P (2023) Fifteen years of research on payments for ecosystem services (PES): piercing the bubble of success as defined by a Northern-driven agenda. Global Environmental Change 83, 102758.10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krithi, S (2018) What constitutes the ‘commons’ in water? A case study of irrigation systems in Puducherry district. In Nawn, N and Elamon, J (eds), Sustainability, Institutions, Incentives: Voices, Policies and Commitments. Delhi: Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), pp. 585–598.Google Scholar
Lele, S (1993) Private property rights and forest preservation in Karnataka Western Ghats, India: comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75, 492–495.Google Scholar
Liu, X, Trogisch, S, He, JS, Niklaus, PA, Bruelheide, H, Tang, Z, Erfmeier, A, Scherer-Lorenzen, M, Pietsch, KA, Yang, B, Kühn, P, Scholten, T, Huang, Y, Wang, C, Staab, M, Leppert, K, Wirth, C, Schmid, B and Ma, K (2018) Tree species richness increases ecosystem carbon storage in subtropical forests. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 285, 1–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Midler, E, Pascual, U, Drucker, AG, Narloch, U and Soto, JL (2015) Unraveling the effects of payments for ecosystem services on motivations for collective action. Ecological Economics 120, 394–405.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.04.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, D and Zevenbergen, JA (2011) Towards land administration systems to support climate mitigation payments. Land Tenure Journal 2, 57–79.Google Scholar
Monterroso, I and Sills, E (2022) Interaction of conditional incentives for ecosystem conservation with tenure security: multiple roles for tenure interventions. In Holland, MB, Masuda, YJ and Robinson, BE (eds), Land Tenure Security and Sustainable Development. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 201–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mundlak, Y (1978) On the pooling of time series and cross section data. Econometrica 46, 69–85.10.2307/1913646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murthy, IK, Murali, KS, Hedge, GT, Bhat, PR and Ravindranath, NH (2002) A comparative analysis of regeneration in natural forests and joint forest management plantations in Uttara Kannada district, Western Ghats. Current Science 83, 1358–1364.Google Scholar
Nadkarni, MV, Pasha, SA and Prabhakar, LS (1989) The Political Economy of Forest Use and Management. New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Naime, J, Angelsen, A, Molina-Garzón, A, Carrilho, CD, Selviana, V, Demarchi, G, Duchelle, AE and Martius, C (2022) Enforcement and inequality in collective PES to reduce tropical deforestation: effectiveness, efficiency and equity implications. Global Environmental Change 74, 102520.10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ngoma, H, Hailu, AT, Kabwe, S and Angelsen, A (2020) Pay, talk or ‘whip’ to conserve forests: framed field experiments in Zambia. World Development 128, 104846.10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perales, FP (2013) MUNDLAK: stata module to estimate random-effects regressions adding group-means of independent variables to the model. Statistical Software Components S457601, Boston College Department of Economics.Google Scholar
Pirard, R and Lapeyre, R (2014) Classifying market-based instruments for ecosystem services: a guide to the literature jungle. Ecosystem Services 9, 106–114.10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.06.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajapaksa, D, Gifford, R, Torgler, B, Garcia-Valiñas, M, Athukorala, W, Managi, S and Wilson, C (2019) Do monetary and non-monetary incentives influence environmental attitudes and behavior? Evidence from an experimental analysis. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 149, 168–176.10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.05.034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramprasad, V, Joglekar, A and Fleischman, F (2020) Plantations and pastoralists: afforestation activities make pastoralists in the Indian Himalaya vulnerable. Ecology and Society 25, 1–13.10.5751/ES-11810-250401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rana, P, Fleischman, F, Ramprasad, V and Lee, K (2022) Predicting wasteful spending in tree planting programs in Indian Himalaya. World Development 154, 105864.10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranjan, R (2021) Can combining two environmental services under a single PES program result in better environmental outcomes and lower costs? Natural Resource Modeling 34, e12303.10.1111/nrm.12303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathod, DS (2019) 10 Himalayan states demand a green bonus. India Today, 29 July 2019. Available at https://www.indiatoday.in/mail-today/story/10-himalayan-states-demand-a-green-bonus-1574594-2019-07-29.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Sickert, C, Guzmán, RA and Cárdenas, JC (2008) Institutions influence preferences: evidence from a common pool resource experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 67, 215–227.10.1016/j.jebo.2007.06.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salk, C, Lopez, MC and Wong, G (2017) Simple incentives and group dependence for successful payments for ecosystem services programs: evidence from an experimental game in rural Lao PDR. Conservation Letters 10, 414–421.10.1111/conl.12277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schunck, R and Perales, F (2017) Within-and between-cluster effects in generalized linear mixed models: a discussion of approaches and the xthybrid command. The Stata Journal 17, 89–115.10.1177/1536867X1701700106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinu, PA, Kent, SM and Chandrashekara, K (2012) Forest resource use and perception of farmers on conservation of a usufruct forest (Soppinabetta) of Western Ghats, India. Land Use Policy 29, 702–709.10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.11.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snilsveit, B, Stevenson, J, Langer, L, Tannous, N, Ravat, Z, Nduku, P, Polanin, J, Shemilt, I, Eyers, J and Ferraro, PJ (2019) Incentives for climate mitigation in the land use sector – The effects of payment for environmental services on environmental and socioeconomic outcomes in low and middle-income countries: a mixed-methods systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews 15, e1045.10.1002/cl2.1045CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Southgate, D, Haab, T, Lundine, J and Rodriguez, F (2010) Payments for environmental services and rural livelihood strategies in Ecuador and Guatemala. Environment and Development Economics 15, 21–37.10.1017/S1355770X09005361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, N (2006) Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sunderlin, WD, Larson, AM and Cronkleton, P (2009) Forest tenure rights and REDD+: from inertia to policy solutions. In Angelsen, A (ed.), Realising REDD+: National Strategy and Policy Options. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research, pp. 139–149.Google Scholar
Turpie, J and Letley, G (2021) Would community conservation initiatives benefit from external financial oversight? A framed field experiment in Namibia's communal conservancies. World Development 142, 105442.10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vorlaufer, T, Engel, S, de Laat, J and Vollan, B (2023) Payments for ecosystem services did not crowd out pro-environmental behavior: long-term experimental evidence from Uganda. PNAS 120, e2215465120.10.1073/pnas.2215465120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, S, Alix-García, J, Bartlett, A and Calder, A (2025) Land tenure security and deforestation: evidence from a framed field experiment in Uganda. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 131, 103137.10.1016/j.jeem.2025.103137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, TA, Monge, JJ, Dowling, LJ, Wakelin, SJ and Gibbs, HK (2020) Promotion of afforestation in New Zealand's marginal agricultural lands through payments for environmental services. Ecosystem Services 46, 101212.10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunder, S (2005) Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
Wunder, S (2015) Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 117, 234–243.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zilberman, D, Lipper, L and McCarthy, N (2008) When could payments for environmental services benefit the poor? Environment and Development Economics 13, 255–278.10.1017/S1355770X08004294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranganathan and Krithi supplementary material
Ranganathan and Krithi supplementary material
File
292.9 KB