A nature field experiment and a choice experiment of the payment system of voluntary contribution. Evidence from Cahuita National Park in Costa Rica.

Just how important social context is for voluntary contributions is investigated in a natural field experiment, where subjects made either actual or hypothetical contributions to a national park in Costa Rica.

This study found that both anonymity and information about others’ donations influenced contributions, implying that validity testing of stated preference methods needs to include comparisons of hypothetical and actual behavior for given social contexts.

In a natural field experiment, the authors quantified the importance of anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity through the provision of social reference levels in order to explain voluntary contributions. In the study setting, the effects of the various treatments were small, suggesting that the self-image as an honorable person, irrespective of other people’s opinions, could be an important explanation of contribution behavior. The experiment overall showed no clear evidence that current practice by charitable organizations is inefficient.

Managed forest ecosystems like shade coffee supply valuable ecological services. Yet little is known about the drivers and characteristics of clearing in such systems.

The purpose of this paper is to test the absolute as well as the relative importance of these three reasons for non-selfish behavior. This is done by conducting a natural field experiment on voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica.

Soil erosion is a major environmental problem and threat to rural development in Kenya. Numerous attempts to address the problem have apparently had little success. There are however some districts that have been very successful, notably Machakos.

We investigate the importance of the social context for people’s voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica, using a natural field experiment.