Carrot or Stick? Modelling How Landowner Behavioural Responses Can Cause Incentive-Based Forest Governance to Backfire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mitigating the negative impacts of declining worldwide forest cover remains a significant socio-ecological challenge, due to the dominant role of human decision-making. Here we use a Markov chain model of land-use dynamics to examine the impact of governance on forest cover in a region. Each land parcel can be either forested or barren (deforested), and landowners decide whether to deforest their parcel according to perceived value (utility). We focus on three governance strategies: yearly incentive for conservation, one-time penalty for deforestation and one-time incentive for reforestation. The incentive and penalty are incorporated into the expected utility of forested land, which decreases the net gain of deforestation. By analyzing the equilibrium and stability of the landscape dynamics, we observe four possible outcomes: a stationary-forested landscape, a stationary-deforested landscape, an unstable landscape fluctuating near the equilibrium, and a cyclic-forested landscape induced by synchronized deforestation. We find that the two incentive-based strategies often result in highly fluctuating forest cover over decadal time scales or longer, and in a few cases, reforestation incentives actually decrease the average forest cover. In contrast, a penalty for deforestation results in the stable persistence of forest cover (generally >30%). The idea that larger conservation incentives will always yield higher and more stable forest cover is not supported in our findings. The decision to deforest is influenced by more than a simple, "rational" cost-benefit analysis: social learning and myopic, stochastic decision-making also have important effects. We conclude that design of incentive programs may need to account for potential counter-productive long-term effects due to behavioural feedbacks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".