Thread by @RachelCarmenta

1/10. Taking the challenge of condensing our new paper into a tweeted summary! sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

2/10. Incentives matter… or do they?
We studied an incentive scheme to reduce Indonesia’s #peatland #fires and found fear of enforcement & public health concerns shape behavior more than incentives.

3/10. We used #QCA to compare 10 #FireFreeVillages - a scheme to incentivise small farmers to reduce fire use (aprildialog.com/en/?s=FFVP). If villages reduce local fires, they are rewarded with US$7,000 to support community projects.

4/10. We compared villages that reduced fire with those that continued burning. We analysed what combinations of interventions (incentives, sanctions, awareness raising) drove fire outcomes, and how the local context of fire risk mediated intervention success?

5/10. In villages with lower fire risk a single instrument was enough to reduce fire: the threat of enforcement for illegal burning.

6/10. In villages with far higher fire risks, fire was reduced only where at least two instruments were combined: feared enforcement and concern about the impacts of fire haze on their health. Again, incentives did not matter.

7/10. We show that context matters, and that deterrents (sanctions, awareness of health risks) were most effective-- even in a scheme largely thought to be driven by incentives. Indeed, PES outcomes are rarely only defined by incentives.

8/10. Previous research shows supporting small farmers is least controversial fire mitigation policy. But even a scheme considered to rely on incentives, in practice hinges on deterrents. Creating equity dilemmas if alternatives to fire-based land management are not accessible.

9/10. What does this mean for chronic fires in 2020?

10/10. What does this mean for design of future #PES schemes? What are better, more equitable and more influencial incentive designs to mitigate extensive fires?