Climate change, collective shocks, and intra-community cooperation: Evidence from a public good experiment with farmers and pastoralists

IF 4.8 1区 经济学 Q1 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES World Development Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-31 DOI:10.1016/j.worlddev.2025.106941
Alexandra Krendelsberger , Francisco Alpizar , Mame Mor Anta Syll , Han van Dijk
{"title":"Climate change, collective shocks, and intra-community cooperation: Evidence from a public good experiment with farmers and pastoralists","authors":"Alexandra Krendelsberger ,&nbsp;Francisco Alpizar ,&nbsp;Mame Mor Anta Syll ,&nbsp;Han van Dijk","doi":"10.1016/j.worlddev.2025.106941","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Scholars and practitioners have long debated the effects of climate change on conflict, and more specifically on its precursors and constituent elements, such as (un)cooperative behavior. While harshening conditions linked to climate change carry collective risks that simultaneously affect whole communities and societies, the underlying conditions and responses might differ between groups and affect cooperative outcomes. In this paper, we explore whether collective and individual shocks undermine or enhance cooperation within farming and pastoral communities in the increasingly difficult conditions of the Sahel. We conducted a lab-in-the-field experiment based on a public good game in a farming area and pastoral area in Senegal. This study finds that (i) on average, pastoralists show higher levels of cooperation compared to farmers, (ii) overall, collective shocks decrease cooperation, while individual shocks increase cooperation, and (iii) effects of individual versus collective shocks are only significant for pastoralists but not for farmers. We suggest that individual shocks lead to more cooperation due to risk-sharing mechanisms, while collective shocks reduce cooperation due to risk aversion. Pastoralists’ higher cooperation levels may be attributed to lower market integration, stronger reliance on social and trading networks, and greater prior exposure to collective risks. These results suggest that risk perceptions and contextual factors, in addition to the nature of the shock, influence responses to climate change. Pastoral areas, while more vulnerable to collective shocks, may also have greater potential for public good provision, which could serve as a potential entry point for climate change adaptation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48463,"journal":{"name":"World Development","volume":"189 ","pages":"Article 106941"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Development","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X25000245","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Scholars and practitioners have long debated the effects of climate change on conflict, and more specifically on its precursors and constituent elements, such as (un)cooperative behavior. While harshening conditions linked to climate change carry collective risks that simultaneously affect whole communities and societies, the underlying conditions and responses might differ between groups and affect cooperative outcomes. In this paper, we explore whether collective and individual shocks undermine or enhance cooperation within farming and pastoral communities in the increasingly difficult conditions of the Sahel. We conducted a lab-in-the-field experiment based on a public good game in a farming area and pastoral area in Senegal. This study finds that (i) on average, pastoralists show higher levels of cooperation compared to farmers, (ii) overall, collective shocks decrease cooperation, while individual shocks increase cooperation, and (iii) effects of individual versus collective shocks are only significant for pastoralists but not for farmers. We suggest that individual shocks lead to more cooperation due to risk-sharing mechanisms, while collective shocks reduce cooperation due to risk aversion. Pastoralists’ higher cooperation levels may be attributed to lower market integration, stronger reliance on social and trading networks, and greater prior exposure to collective risks. These results suggest that risk perceptions and contextual factors, in addition to the nature of the shock, influence responses to climate change. Pastoral areas, while more vulnerable to collective shocks, may also have greater potential for public good provision, which could serve as a potential entry point for climate change adaptation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
气候变化、集体冲击和社区内合作:来自农民和牧民公益实验的证据
长期以来,学者和实践者一直在争论气候变化对冲突的影响,更具体地说,是对冲突的前兆和构成要素(如(非)合作行为)的影响。虽然与气候变化相关的恶劣条件会带来集体风险,同时影响整个社区和社会,但群体之间的基本条件和应对措施可能会有所不同,并影响合作成果。在本文中,我们探讨了在萨赫勒地区日益困难的条件下,集体和个人的冲击是否会破坏或加强农牧社区内部的合作。我们在塞内加尔的一个农业区和牧区进行了一项基于公益游戏的野外实验室实验。本研究发现:(1)平均而言,牧民的合作水平高于农民;(2)总体而言,集体冲击降低了合作,而个人冲击增加了合作;(3)个人冲击对集体冲击的影响仅对牧民显著,而对农民不显著。我们认为,个体冲击由于风险分担机制导致合作增加,而集体冲击由于风险规避机制导致合作减少。牧民较高的合作水平可能归因于较低的市场一体化程度、较强的社会和贸易网络依赖程度以及较高的先前集体风险暴露程度。这些结果表明,除了冲击的性质外,风险认知和背景因素也影响对气候变化的反应。牧区虽然更容易受到集体冲击,但也可能具有更大的提供公共产品的潜力,这可以作为适应气候变化的潜在切入点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
World Development
World Development Multiple-
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
5.80%
发文量
320
期刊介绍: World Development is a multi-disciplinary monthly journal of development studies. It seeks to explore ways of improving standards of living, and the human condition generally, by examining potential solutions to problems such as: poverty, unemployment, malnutrition, disease, lack of shelter, environmental degradation, inadequate scientific and technological resources, trade and payments imbalances, international debt, gender and ethnic discrimination, militarism and civil conflict, and lack of popular participation in economic and political life. Contributions offer constructive ideas and analysis, and highlight the lessons to be learned from the experiences of different nations, societies, and economies.
期刊最新文献
The double-edged impact of e-commerce participation on farm’s Income: Evidence from China Reinventing reproductive labor: childcare in rural China under collectivization (1956–1961) Substitute or complement? Quantity–quality effects of agricultural production diversity and market access on diets Rebuilding after disaster in Haiti: effects of expecting external, diaspora, and local support Exploring synergistic pathways between urbanization, water use efficiency, and renewable energy adoption in enhancing food security in Sub-Saharan Africa: A causal analysis using temporal causal modeling
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1