g3 presentation_reflection workshop_april 10-11_2013gbdc 5 presentation
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
1/59
OUTPUTS, PROGRESS TO DATE AND
PLANS TO CLOSURE
G3: Water Governance and Community Based Management
Ganges Basin Development Challenge
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
2/59
PRESENTATION
1. Reminder on our objectives
2. G3 research activities Overall puzzle: description of the activities, outcomes
Experimental games
Preliminary results from household survey
3. Upcoming research questions
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
3/59
G3: Objectives
Main objective:
Understand the
different institutionsand key actorsinvolved in watergovernance in thecoastal polders
Understand the role of
communities in suchgovernance, conflictresolution andproductive use of landand water
Better governed polders
Suggestimplementable policysuggestions forimproving polder
governance inBangladesh
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
4/59
Understanding the actors,
communities and institutions
G3: Objectives
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
5/59
G3: Research Questions
Is community management the best way of
managing coastal polders? If so, under what
circumstances does it work?
If community management is indeed the wayforward, what are the constraints that communities
face in polder management?
What kind of policies and institution are needed sothat communities can participate in management of
polders?
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
6/59
G3: Study sites
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
7/59
gActivities
Data & Cases Participatory mapping
Situation analysis
In-depth case studies
Experimental Games
Household survey
WMO survey
Participatory Research
Research ValidationCollaboration with local universities
Focusing on PRA methods and inviting
different opinions from different
stakeholders Validation workshops
Policy Analysis &
Communications Research papers
Policy briefs
Workshops
Shushilan
(NGO), IWM,
BAU, BWDB ,
LGED,
consultants
Coastal
communities,
local
government
institutions
Regional and
national
policy makers
Partners
Outcomes
Polders
managed in a
way thathelps improve
food security
and
livelihoods
IMPACTContribute for building up longer term
resilience among the communities who
live in coastal areas in Bangladesh
Policyimpact
Informed
scientificresearch
Capacitybuilding
G3: Research framework and impact pathway
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
8/59
G3 RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
9/59
ACTIVITIES AND OUTPUTS
Desk reviews
Outputs 3 Literature reviews Water management
institutions and policies
Gender in water management
WMOs
Partners IWM, IWMI
Status Completed
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
10/59
ACTIVITIES AND OUTPUTS
Desk reviews
Outputs 51 FGDs
87 KIIs9 Situation analysis reports
Partners Sushilan, IWMI
Status Completed
Qualitative
survey
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
11/59
ACTIVITIES AND OUTPUTS
Desk reviewsOutputs 9 infrastructure maps
Partners IWM
Status Completed
Qualitative
survey
Infrastructures
mapping
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
12/59
ACTIVITIES AND OUTPUTS
Desk reviews
Outputs 9 flooding maps21 cropping patterns
9 canals maps
Partners IWM
Status Completed
Qualitative
survey
Infrastructures
mapping
Participatory
maps
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
13/59
ACTIVITIES AND OUTPUTS
Desk reviews
Qualitative
survey
Infrastructures
mapping
Participatory
maps
Official
consultations
Output Consultation meetings
Partners IWMI
Status Completed, but more canbe done
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
14/59
ACTIVITIES AND OUTPUTS
Desk reviews
Qualitative
survey
Infrastructures
mapping
Participatory
maps
Official
consultationsOutput 3 validation workshops
Partners IWMI, Shushilan
Status Completed, but morewill be done Community
consultations
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
15/59
ACTIVITIES AND OUTPUTS
Desk reviews
Qualitative
survey
Infrastructures
mapping
Participatory
maps
Official
consultations
Outputs Research papers
Partners IWMI
Status CompletedCommunity
consultations
Experimental games
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
16/59
ACTIVITIES AND OUTPUTS
Desk reviews
Qualitative
survey
Infrastructures
mapping
Participatory
maps
Official
consultations
Output Research report
Partners BELA
Status CompletedCommunity
consultations
Experimental games
Conflict case study
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
17/59
ACTIVITIES AND OUTPUTS
Desk reviews
Qualitative
survey
Infrastructures
mapping
Participatory
maps
Official
consultations
Community
consultations
Experimental games
Conflict case study
Outputs KIIs
Research reportPartners Dr Maniruzzaman
Status On going
Gender
case study
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
18/59
ACTIVITIES AND OUTPUTS
Desk reviews
Qualitative
survey
Infrastructures
mapping
Participatory
maps
Official
consultations
Community
consultations
Experimental games
Conflict case study
Gender
case study
Outputs KII, FGD
Evolution of coastal zonepolicies in West Bengal
Situation analysis report
Partners The Researcher
Status On going
West Bengal case study
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
19/59
ACTIVITIES AND OUTPUTS
Students thesis
Qualitative
survey
Participatory
maps
Official
consultations
Community
consultations
Experimental games
Conflict case study
Gender
case studyInfrastructures
mapping
Output 5 student thesis
Partners BAU
Status Completed
Desk reviews
West Bengal case study
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
20/59
ACTIVITIES AND OUTPUTS
Desk reviews
Qualitative
survey
Infrastructures
mapping
Participatory
maps
Official
consultations
Community
consultations
Experimental games
Conflict case study
Gender
case study
Students thesis
Household
WMO survey
Outputs Database 1000 households
Database 40 WMOsDescriptive report
Research papers
Partners IWMI, Shushilan
Status On going
West Bengal case study
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
21/59
ACTIVITIES AND OUTPUTS
Infrastructures
mapping
Participatory
maps
Official
consultations
Community
consultations
Experimental games
Conflict case study
Gender
case study
West Bengal case study
Students thesis
Desk reviews
Qualitative
survey
Household
WMO survey
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
22/59
HOUSEHOLD SURVEYPreliminary descriptive results
Household
WMO survey
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
23/59
INTRODUCTION
G3: Water governance and community based management
Deepening
Phase 1Qualitative phase
Focus group discussion, key informant interviews
Participatory mapping
Cases studies: institution, gender
Situation analysis, to identify institutions livelihoods, social processes, operation andmaintenance in the polders and subproject.
Measuring
Phase 2Quantitative phase
Use findings from qualitative phase for quantitative research that models different livelihoodimpacts based on different governance modes and structures.
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
24/59
PURPOSES OF THE QUANTITATIVE SURVEY
Bring quantitative answers to our research
questions
Draw a comprehensive overview of the householdvulnerability
Focus on operation and maintenance in water
management at the household and communitylevel
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
25/59
DETAILED SAMPLE
Number of
households
Number of villages Number of sampled
households
Number of sampled
villages
Latabunia 104 1 40 1
Jabusa 2,267 2 80 2
Jainkati 71 1 36 1
Polder 30 8462 44 280 14
Polder 3 35356 117 280 14
Poler 43-2F 6457 12 284 12
TOTAL 52,542 177 1000 44
Section 1 Identification
Section 2 Institutional features
Section 3 Financial features, income
Section 4 Financial features, expensesSection 5 operation and maintenance
HH questionnaire WMO questionnaire
Section 1 Identification
Section 2 Demography
Section 3 Housing and assetsSection 4 Lands
Section 5 Agriculture
Section 6 Aquaculture
Section 7 IGA
Section 8 Saving and creditSection 9 Social capital
Section 10 WMO
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
26/59
PROJECT SITES AND DESCRIPTION
Polder
Subprojects Agency Level of Salinity WMOs (Yes/No) andproject ManagementchallengesPolder 3 BWDB High No informal
management Shrimp- paddyconflictPolder 30 BWDB Low to Average YesIPSWAM Water loggingPolder 43-2F BWDB Low YesIPSWAM Water scarcityLatabunia LGED High Yes- SSWRDP Disaster
vulnerabilityJabusha LGED Average to High YesSSWRDP SalinityJainkathi LGED Low YesSSWRDP Water scarcity
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
27/59
FINDINGS
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
28/59
3 different indices has been created using Principal Component Analysis to capture the wealth level of each HH
Housing Index - - - using material of roof, floor, toilet, tube-well
Domestic Asset Index - - - using information about 20 household items like radio, sewing machine, table etc.
Productive Asset Index - - - using information about 22 productive assets like tube-well, pump, livestock etc.
Next for each index the 33rd & 66th percentile is identified based on the whole sample.
Used to create a discrete index with 3 levels
POVERTY LEVEL
Assets index
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
29/59
0%
50%
100%
TOTAL Jabusha Jainkati Latabunia Polder 3 Polder 30 Polder 43-2F
Housing Index
Group 3
Group 2
Group 1
0%
50%
100%
TOTAL Jabusha Jainkati Latabunia Polder 3 Polder 30 Polder 43-2F
Domestic Assets Index
Group 3
Group 2
Group 1
0%
50%
100%
TOTAL Jabusha Jainkati Latabunia Polder 3 Polder 30 Polder 43-2F
Agricultural and Productive Assets Index
Group 3
Group 2
Group 1
Polders 30 & LT fare
very badly ; while JB
AND 43 do quite well at
housing index.
Clear ranking :
JB>3>JK>30>LT>4
3
Surprisingly JK & LT
are best ; 30 & 43 are
also just slightlybehind, while 3 & JB
lags behind
POVERTY LEVEL
Assets indexCont
Group 1 = Very Good
Group 2 = Not so good not so bad
Group 3 = Bad
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
30/59
LAND
80.34 87.34 86.11 62.5 80.58 75.36 84.86
15.7510.13 5.56
25
15.11 2013.73
3.91 2.53 8.33 12.54.32 4.64 1.41
TOTAL Jabusha Jainkati Latabunia Polder 3 Polder 30 Polder 43-2F
Land holding distribution
Small farmer (< 2.49) Medium farmer (2.5 - 7.49) Large farmer (> 7.5)
Area measured in acres
Average number of plots per HH varies from 3 - 4.5
The most important cropping season is Kharif-2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Total Jabusha Jainkati Latabunia Polder 3 Polder 30 Polder 43-2F
%o
fplotscultivated
Intensivity of plot use
3 seasons
2 seasons
1 season
Latabuniahas a lowerproportion of small
farmers although it is one
of the poor polders
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
31/59
AGRICULTURE & AQUACULTURE
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
TOTAL JB JK LT 3 30 43
Importance of Agriculture and Aquaculture
No agriculture, no aquaculture Agriculture
Aquaculture Agriculture and aquaculture
Latabunia is totally dependent
on agriculture + aquaculture,
while Jabusa has least
dependence
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
3 30 43 JB JK LT Total
Water problems while practicing
agriculture
yes
no
Except for JB, in all the polders approximately20% of the people face water problems
Aquaculture is important for polders 3 &
30, while 43 & LT has some
No aquaculture activities in JK & JB
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
3 30 43 LT
Aquaculture activities across polders
Bagda Golda mixed fish other fish/crab
3JB
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
32/59
44%
9%
1%
28%
6%
5%1%
5%
1%
3
46%
6%
4%6%
3%
1%
34%
30
35%
20%
3%
9%
16%
4%7%
3%
1%1% 1%43
43%
6%
4%
27%
10%
4%
6%
JK
95%
5%
LT43%
10%
2%
11%
7%
2%
5%
4%
2%
1% 2% 11%
Cropping pattern across polders
Aman
Aus
Betel
Boro
Chickling etc.
Chilli
Lentil/Masur
Oilseeds
Other Veg
Other crops
Potato
Sesame
60%
5%
26%
3%
3%3%
JB
Aman rice is the most important
crop, across all polders.
Polder 43 & JK are most diversified
in terms of crop production ,
whereas Latabunia is at the other
extreme with just two crops.
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
33/59
INCOME GENERATING ACTIVITIES -
across Gender
Signif icant difference in yearly income earned from other activit ies between male
(BDT 75530) and fem ale(BDT 32543).
Female part icipation is less in High Income Generating A ctivit ies like Trade &
Services.
Female part ic ipation in terms o f num bers is highest in Poul t ry, Sewing, Agr icul tura l
Labour er, Cash for Work, NGO and Petty comm erce, whic h are the Low in com e
generating activit ies
Acro ss Polders, daily labour seems to be the main sou rce of IGA. However, in JB
sinc e it is close to indus tr ial area trade and service are main so urces .
Activ it ies don e per HH=1.333
42% Males & 7.6% Females are involv ed in IGA
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
34/59
% of HHs that participate in different Social Groups
No. of Groups 3 30 43 JB JK LT Total
0 64 59 65 63 33 33 61
>0 36 41 35 37 67 67 39
SOCIAL GROUP :
Participation
3 30 43 JB JK LT Total
323 25 24
5842
2210
7 6 0
0
3
613
6 20
0 22
7
5748
6168
42 22
53
17 176 9
011 12
Group membership across Polder
Water Related Political Party Youth/Sport NGO Others
Part icipation in so cial group amon g females (8.81%) is sign if icantly less than that
among males (12.21%)
In social groups inf lu encial pos it ions like president , secretary , etc are mo stly held by
male members
NGOs dominates female participation in social groups
Water intrusion in
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
35/59
24%
2%
35%
28%
9%
2%
Who should act to solve the problem?
Community people WMO UP BWDB LGED Other
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
3 30 43 JB JK LT Total
Extent to which problem was solved across polder
High
Medium
Low
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Reasons for BWDB/LGED intervention across polders
Other
Natural disaster
River erosion
Water-logging
Salinity
Crop damage
Water intrusion in
high tide
Most Important Problem in
village3 30 43 JB JK LT Total
Water Logging 11.79 23.57 16.9 17.5 0 15 16.7
Water Scarcity 47.86 24.29 47.54 31.25 22.22 25 38
Lack of irrigation 1.43 10 7.39 2.5 11.11 0 5.9
Salinity 9.29 3.93 2.82 16.25 5.56 27.5 7.1
Canal Siltation 3.57 12.86 7.39 7.5 11.11 0 7.7
Sluice gate condition 2.5 10.36 7.39 2.5 36.11 7.5 7.5
WMO :
Water related problems
high tide is the
most common
reason. Salinity is
also important,
specially for 30
and JB.
The most important problem is water scarcity across poldersfollowed by water logging
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
36/59
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
3 30 43 JB JK LT Total
Percentage of HHs doing voluntary gate work
Yes
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
3 30 43 JB JK LT Total
Percentage of People participating
Physical participation of
gate operations
Decision making in the
gate operation
GATES
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
3 30 43 JB JK LT Total
Who operates Gate?Others
Several people depending on the needs
Voluntary gateman living nearby
Gateman appointed by gher owners
Gateman appointed by committee
Khalasi
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
37/59
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
3 30 43 JB JK LT
Average monetary payment for canal and embankment
maintenance
Spend for maintainence of the Canal
Spend for maintainence of the embankment
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
3 30 43 JB JK LT
Av. No. of days of voluntary work for canal and
embankment
No of days worked voluntary last yr to maintian the canal
No of days worked voluntary last yr to maintian the embankment
Monetary payment for embankment and voluntary
work for canal?
CANALS AND EMBANKMENT
0%
50%
100%
3 30 43 JB JK LT Total
Canal Condition
Very Good
Neither Good nor Bad
Very Bad
0%
50%
100%
3 30 43 JB JK LT Total
Condition of Gate
Very Good
Neither Good nor Bad
Very Bad
0%
50%
100%
3 30 43 JB JK LT Total
Embankment Condition
Very Good
Neither Good nor Bad
Very Bad
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
38/59
Next steps .
Use Regression analysis to find out what affects the decision to participate inoperation/maintenance and the willingness to pay ,at the HH level.
Create and use village Level characteristics like Social capital , Income inequalityand Land distribution, geographic characteristics etc. to understand the dynamicsof Water governing Institutions that develop there.
Understand how water related issues affect livelihood choices and create economicvulnerabilities , by using the collected data on water related problems faced by the
HHs and the data on their economic activities .
Use hydrological data like salinity, level of land, etc to find out how livelihoodchoices, cropping pattern, etc are affected
CONCLUSION
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
39/59
EXPERIMENTAL GAMES
Experimental games
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
40/59
INTRODUCTION Embankments constructed by the Government of Bangladesh (GoB) across the entire
coastal zone in the 1960s and 1970s.
1st objective: Protection for tidal surge, flood, natural calamity
2nd objective: Increasing agricultural productivity
Operation and maintenance of the infrastructures is the key challenge to ensure the
sustainability of the system.
GoB that requires local communities to organize themselves into Water Management
Organizations (WMOs) and contribute towards minor maintenance of water
infrastructure.
National Water Policy of 1999 (MoWR, 1999)
Guidelines for Participatory Water Management, (MoWR, 2001).
RESEARCH PURPOSE
To understand the factors
that help or impede
collection of voluntary
maintenance funds from
members of WMOs.
POLICY PURPOSE
Improve water governance
and the maintenance of the
infrastructure for enhancing
the productive uses of land
and water resources.
MOTIVATION AND BACKGROUND
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
41/59
MOTIVATION AND BACKGROUNDWater policy in Bangladesh
Before 60s
60s 80s
Protection by temporary and seasonal earthen
Maintenance by the landlords (zamindars)Voluntary labour from their tenants.
Coastal Embankment Project (CEP)
No mention of participatory water management.
BWDB khalashis responsible for managing and maintaining coastal embankments.
80s
Involvement of communities in design and implementation of projects introduced.
Financial contribution towards maintenance not required.
Late 1980s, entry of LGED in the water sector
Community contribution towards maintenance tested for the first time.
Realization that regular upkeep of infrastructure is the Achilles heel of entireinfrastructure investments.
GoB enunciated community participation as its core principle of water
management through its NWP (MoWR, 1999) and GPWM (MoWR, 2001).
Requirement of financial contribution by the community for maintenance
90s
MOTIVATION AND BACKGROUND
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
42/59
MOTIVATION AND BACKGROUNDMaintenance situation
Perception of the infrastructures condition 20% of the households consider the gates as being in good condition
15% of the households consider the canals as being in good condition
Contributions
Both for LGED and BWDB data shows that maintenance funds always fall
to answer to the requirements.
91% of the household did not contribute to maintain the gates in 2012
95 % of the household did not contribute to maintain the canals in 2012
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Very bad canal condition
Very bad gate condition
MOTIVATION AND BACKGROUND
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
43/59
MOTIVATION AND BACKGROUNDInstitutional differences
Theoretical and empirical research shows the importance of institutions in forging
cooperative outcomes (Bardhan, 2005; Agarwal, 2001; North, 1990). Importance of institution in sustainable management of common property resources
(Wade, 1988; Ostrom, 1990; Baland & Platteau, 1996)
Entered the water sector in 1980s, culture of
community participation was already well
entrenched.
Small Scale Water Resources Sector
Development Project (SSWRDSP), phase I in
1994, now phases III and IV, funding support
until 2017.
WMCAs registered with the cooperative
department.
Communities contribute 4% of the capital cost
of physical infrastructure.
Maintenance funds , yearly audit statements
NGOs and extension agencies for
implementing community participation
Declining field presence.
WMGs or WMAs registered as rural
cooperatives since 2008.
No contribution of the WMO required at initial
stage.
Encouragement of the WMO for starting
maintenance fund and collecting subscriptions
BWDBLGED
METHODOLOGY
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
44/59
METHODOLOGYPublic good game
Purpose of the game
Designing a fictive situation to reproduce real life
Understanding the determinants of contribution to maintain a public good.
Understanding the willingness to contribute to common maintenance funds.
Understanding the behaviours: from cooperation to free-riding
Sample
Game played 18 times:- Polder 3, polder 30, polder 31
- Latabunia, Jabusha, Bagachra-Badurgachra 5 players per game 90 players
30 rounds per game 2700 decisions
METHODOLOGY
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
45/59
Each player has to decide the allocation of a cash
amount (20, 35/10) among a common fund andprivate fund.
The incentive for contributing in the commonfund is that if the fund reaches a certainthreshold (50 or 95), a payment is added (25 or75).
The common pool is then distributed betweenthe players.
The rules vary from one session to another toreflect real life conditions.
METHODOLOGYProcedure of the game
TREATMENTS C T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
Information No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial cash = = =
Gains distribution = = = =
Threshold 50 50 50 50 50 95
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
46/59
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICSAverage contribution per round
Control Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 Treatment 48
10
1
2
14
0 5 10 15 20 25
Rounds
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
47/59
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICSInformation effect
Control
No information
Treatment 1
Information
T-test of
differences
(p-value)
Individual variables
Individual contributions 11.448 9.442 (0.000)
Individual gains 26.117 22.702 (0.000)
Group variable
Proportion of rounds with success 0.744 0.533 (0.003)
Contribution standard deviation, within group 5.009 4.174 (0.020)
Control Round 5
No information
Treatment 1
Round 6
Information
Individual variables
Individual contributions 12.277 10.233
Individual gains 27.666 22.488
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
48/59
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICSUnequal gain distribution effect
Treatment 1
Equal gains distribution
Treatment 2
Proportional gains
distribution
T-test of
differences
(p-value)
Individual variables
Individual contributions 9.442 13.224 (0.000)
Individual gains 22.702 27.842 (0.000)
Group variable
Proportion of rounds with success 0. 533 0.777 (0.000)
Contribution standard deviation,
within group
4.174 4.005 (0.640)Equal
Endow
ment
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
49/59
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICSInequalities in endowments effect
Equal
Endow
ment
Treatment 1
Equal
endowments
Treatment 3
Unequal
endowments
T-test of
differences
(p-value)
Individual variables
Individual contributions 9.442 10.208 (0.156)
Individual gains 22.702 24.602 (0.010)
Group variable
Proportion of rounds with success 0.533 0.611 (0.294)
Amount collected in the collective fund 47.211 51.044 (0.274)
Contribution standard deviation, within group 4.174 8.394 (0.000)
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
50/59
REGRESSION ANALYSISModel
Equal
Endow
ment
xijt = 1Rt + 2Ii + 3Gj + ijt
Individual contribution
Individual earning
Round characteristics
Game-rules variables
Past events from the game(success, contributions, earning)
Group characteristics
Number of relatives and
friends
Heterogeneity of the group(sex, religion, wealth)
Institutional context
Individual characteristics Age, sex, religion
Level of education
Main source of income, land size
Participation and contribution
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
51/59
REGRESSION ANALYSISGame variables - Results
Equal
Endow
ment
VARIABLES
(1)
OLS
(3)
OLS
Individual contribution Individual earning
Initial endowment 0.566*** 0.963***
(0.0348) (0.0270)
Information -1.851*** -3.754***
(0.449) (0.871)
Inequalities in endowments -2.497*** -3.400**
(0.753) (1.425)
Unequal sharing of the pot 1.204** 1.270
(0.508) (0.901)
Previous round unsuccessful 0.249*** 0.423***(0.0747) (0.144)
Round, learning effect -6.277*** -7.717***
(0.559) (0.668)
Observations 2,250 2,250
R-squared 0.523 0.473
Information has a negative and significant effect on the
individual contribution as well as on the earning
Endowment heterogeneity in the game design has a significantnegative influence on the individual earning and contribution.
Proportional distribution of the common fund has a
significant and positive effect on the contributions.
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
52/59
REGRESSION ANALYSISIndividual variables - Results
Equal
Endow
ment
VARIABLES
(1)
OLS
(3)
OLS
Individual contribution Individual earning
Main income from agriculture 2.364** -2.223**
(0.955) (0.895)
Main income from aquaculture 2.753*** -1.500*
(0.917) (0.846)
Sex, men -0.516 0.244
(0.988) (0.750)
Religion, Muslim 3.768*** -1.711**
(0.898) (0.833)
Age 0.0539* 0.0312
(0.0321) (0.0336)
Education level 0.319*** -0.0843(0.101) (0.0812)
WMCA, WMO member 0.683 -1.541**
(0.678) (0.662)
Contribution in maintenance fund -0.497 -1.400
(0.881) (0.976)
Land size -0.00208** 0.00162
(0.000942) (0.00131)
Observations 2,250 2,250
R-squared 0.523 0.473
Players are drawing most of their income from agriculture oraquaculture they are contributing more to the common fund.
Age as well as the highest level of education achieved determine
positively and significantly the individual contribution.
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
53/59
REGRESSION ANALYSISGroup variables - Results
Equal
Endow
ment
VARIABLES
(1)
OLS
(3)
OLS
Individual contribution Individual earning
LGED sub-project 2.376*** 2.637***
(0.876) (0.831)
Number of relative in the group -1.073** 0.641
(0.418) (0.475)
Number of close friend in the group -0.312 0.718
(0.405) (0.450)
Same religion within the group 0.767 -0.304
(0.902) (0.841)
Standard deviation of land size 0.00177 0.00189
(0.00141) (0.00132)Group of men 0.765 1.452*
(0.781) (0.731)
Constant -7.898*** 7.467***
(2.250) (2.264)
Observations 2,250 2,250
R-squared 0.523 0.473
Group composition in terms of gender, religion or wealth doesnt
have any significant effect on the individual contribution.
The more a player is surrounded by relatives in his group, the less
he contributes.
Players from LGED villages are contributing higher amounts in the
common fund than other players whatever are the individual,
group and game characteristics.
MAIN RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
54/59
MAIN RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Equal
Endow
ment
1. Principal users and beneficiaries of the infrastructures should
be targeted first for contributing.
2. Homogeneous groups would contribute more and maintain
their infrastructure better. But: How to create homogeneous groups in heterogeneous villages?
Solution: Membership conditions
Ex: In some WMOs, only landowners can be members.
3. Contributions are higher when there are related benefits. But: In reality, benefits are not related to the contributions.
Solution: Introducing benefits for members, even if not related to water
Ex: In some WMOs, access to micro-credit for members, fishing rights
4. Strong institutions support individual contributions for
maintenance. Institutions created by the community itself
Involvement at the early stage of the project, create an ownership, a
willingness to cooperate in the future.
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
55/59
REMAINING RESEARCH QUESTIONS
G3: Water Governance and Community Based ManagementGanges Basin Development Challenge
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
56/59
How to do expenses?We can improve the collection of funds for maintenance at the
community level.But: How to ensure that the funds will be used for maintenance?
The problem:
In some WMCAs with ability to collect funds and to generate
incomes, the infrastructures are not really in better condition
because the funds are not allocated to maintenance.
Reasons:
Preference for the present Corruption
Project cycle: minor reparation will become major and will
be solved
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
57/59
What is behind institutions? We notice that institutions matters:
Villages from LGED subprojects contribute more formaintenance.
What are these institutions? Where does it come from?
Social trust among the community members?
Commonality of interest?
Long term interactions?
Community involvement?
Leaders, influential people?
How to create better institutions for a better water
governance?
How socio economic factors and
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
58/59
How socio-economic factors and
hydro-ecological factors interact?
How the hydro-ecological situation within the coastal zonedetermines the livelihoods and the adaptation strategies of the
households?
Is the geography of the coastal zone a constraint or an
opportunity for the farmers?
How households implement adaptation strategies and which are
the constraints they face?
DATA
GIS data from G1, G4
Socio-economic data from G3
-
7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation
59/59
Thank you