Input- or output-based contracts in payments for environmental services: Interacting impacts of uncertainty, partial observability, and collective action

Last registered on August 24, 2026

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Input- or output-based contracts in payments for environmental services: Interacting impacts of uncertainty, partial observability, and collective action
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0019432
Initial registration date
August 17, 2026

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
August 24, 2026, 9:08 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
UCSB

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
Completed
Start date
2026-06-05
End date
2026-06-18
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial is based on or builds upon one or more prior RCTs.
Abstract
This pre-analysis plan describes a research project with smallholder cattle farmers in the Eastern Cape region of South Africa. The broad goal of this study is to understand how the design of public good contracts shape individual contributions to the public good and resulting public good provision. The study design is a framed field experiment (a lab-in-the-field). Participants face five contracts varying multiple features of the payment scheme. Each contract is played both individually and in a group, so the design identifies how each contract feature performs by itself and how moving from an individual principal-agent relationship to a principal-collective agent setting affects performance. The study speaks to the design of payments for ecosystem services on communal land and to the classic input-versus-output contracting problem under partial observability.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Malagutti, Flavio. 2026. "Input- or output-based contracts in payments for environmental services: Interacting impacts of uncertainty, partial observability, and collective action." AEA RCT Registry. August 24. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.19432-1.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention (Hidden)
Intervention Start Date
2026-06-05
Intervention End Date
2026-06-18

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Our primary outcomes of interest come from the public goods game.
They are the individual-level decisions to fund rotational grazing and unobserved contributions.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The core of the data collection instrument is a multi-round public-goods game played on individual tablets.
The framing of the games is around carbon storage: contributions to the global public good are framed as being contributions towards carbon storage in the community's rangelands.
Participants play all public-goods games both in groups of about five players (a standard public-goods design) and individually (a group of one).
Group membership is reshuffled across games and drawn from the entire session of participants, so that over the course of a session a participant interacts with essentially all session-mates.

The games were designed as follows.
In each round, participants receive an endowment of 100 tokens and decide whether to fund rotational grazing, a binary choice ($g = 20$ tokens or $g = 0$), and unobserved contributions, $e$, representing a continuous choice of an additional conservation margin that others cannot observe, from zero up to the total remaining budget.
At the end of each round, the number of participants who contributed to rotational grazing are observable to all participants within the group, while individual decisions and unobserved contributions $e$ are not observable other than through their effect on the final aggregated payment outcome, which is contract-dependent and explained below.

We designed five different payment rules for the public-goods game and refer to them as contracts. Each contract is played twice: first solo (a single-person group), which serves as the individual principal-agent benchmark, and then in a group. The combination (contract by individual-or-group mode) is referred to as a game. One game is randomly selected for payment, and the number of paid rounds per game is determined by a block-random-termination rule.

The five contracts vary three design features: (a) whether the contract pays for observable (grazing) inputs or for measured output, (b) whether the output is exposed to a production shock, and (c) whether, in addition to the observed contributions, the output is affected by an additional unobservable margin, in which the individual chooses her contribution without revealing any signal to the group.

The full carbon (public good) production function is set to $F(G,E) = (2G + 1.5E)\varepsilon$, where $G$ and $E$ are the sums grazing and unobserved (extra) contributions in the community that is playing together, respectively. The production shock $\varepsilon$ is drawn from a two-point (Bernoulli) distribution with equally likely outcomes 0.5 and 1.5. The shock is therefore mean-preserving, and it is applied to the public good production after all contributions have been summed but before payments are distributed. Therefore, the contracts that inherit risk pay participants on the final outcome after the risk shock. All five contracts pay participants for their grazing contribution. Furthermore, the expected private marginal return of this contribution is set equal across all contracts within the same game-mode (solo or collective), ensuring equivalence in grazing incentives. On the other hand, only some contracts pay for unobserved contributions. Contracts C3 and C5 offer a positive return for extra contributions, while the other contracts do not.

The order in which the contracts appear is randomized across sessions. In every session, participants always begin with playing C1 then C2. From then on, the order of C3, C4, and C5 varies by community. For each contract, participants play the solo mode first, followed by the collective mode.

All in all, experimental assignment happens in two ways. First is within individuals since we have every individual engage with different types of contracts in the lab. From this engagement, we extract within-individual changes in behavior caused by the contract features they are facing. The second experimental assignment is in the order that these contracts appear. This assignment is at the session level. The variation is in which contract features comes first, second, third, fourth and fifth. That is, the order in which different contract features appear to all participants in a specific session.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
The randomization method here applies to the session-level order of contract features. This was pre-determined before visiting the community. We had a list of communities to visit and arbitrarily chose which contract order we would show for participants in that session. This works for causal identification in our case because we make sure that all possible orders are represented and because our primary identification is within individual.
Randomization Unit
Farming communities
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
8
Sample size: planned number of observations
200
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
8 farming communities, with 25 participants in each community for a total of 200 participants
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Rhodes University Human Research Ethics Committee
IRB Approval Date
2026-03-20
IRB Approval Number
RUHREC-2026-0062
Analysis Plan

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials