This file was generated on 2025-05-21 by Qambemeda Masala Nyanghura A GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Title of the dataset: Designing Conservation-Incentives for Tanzania’s Ecological Corridors: Cost-effectiveness and Behavioral Determinants 2. Brief description of the research project and its aims: This study assessed the conservation effectiveness of two modalities of payment for ecosystem service schemes (fixed payment and fixed payment with agglomeration bonus) under asymmetric land ownership. The study further assessed the influence of personal values in shaping conservation effectiveness of such payment schemes. The study was done in two ecological corridors of Tanzania. 3. Author Information A. Investigator Contact Information Name: Qambemeda Masala Nyanghura Institution: Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn Address: Genscherallee 3, 53113 Bonn Email: qmnyanghura@sua.ac.tz B. Project Supervisor (Principal Investigator) Contact Information Name: Jun.-Prof. Lisa Biber-Freudenberger Institution: Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn Address: Genscherallee 3, 53113 Bonn Email: lfreuden@uni-bonn.de C. In case of questions related to this dataset, please contact: Name: Qambemeda Masala Nyanghura Institution: Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn Address: Genscherallee 3, 53113 Bonn Email: qmnyanghura@sua.ac.tz 4. Date of data collection: 2022-04-01 to 2022-05-30 5. Information about funding sources that supported the collection of the data: This work was funded by Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD, a German Academic Exchange Service), LANUSYNCON project, the Collaborative Research Center 228: Future Rural Africa [TRR 228] and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany's Excellence Strategy [EXC-2070-390732324-PhenoRob]. 6. Language of the dataset: English 7. Geographic location of data collection: Igando-Igawa and Baga-kisimagonja ecological corridors located in the southern highland and northern regions of Tanzania respectively. B DATA & FILE OVERVIEW 1. File List: One Excel file “Dataset_Designing_Conservation_Incentives_Ecological_Corridors.xlx” containing a dataset that capture the observations from the experimental study on conservation effectiveness of payment for ecosystem services in two ecological corridors of Tanzania. 2. Are there multiple versions of the dataset? No 3. Relationship between files: N/A 4. Additional related data collected that was not included in the current data package: N/A C SHARING/ACCESS INFORMATION 1. Was data derived from another source? no 2. Licenses/restrictions placed on the data: CC BY-NC 4.0 3. Links to publications that cite or use the data: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108152; https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1493672 4. Links to other publicly accessible locations of the data: N/A 5. Links/relationships to ancillary datasets: N/A D METHODOLOGICAL INFORMATION 1. Description of methods used for collection/generation of data. This study used lab-in-the field experiment with rural farmers in groups of four. One group was assigned to a treatment (i.e. treatment group) and another not (i.e. control group). A group can either in equal (i.e., all small farmers, each endowed with two parcels of experimental farmland) or unequal (i.e., small and large farmers, each large farmer endowed with four parcels of experimental farmland) settings. The treatment was introduced in a sequence of three consecutive rounds of the game that are; conservation sensitization as a baseline (T0), followed by fixed payment (T1) and fixed payment with agglomeration bonus (T2). Farmers in control group consistently repeated the baseline. In each round, farmer had to make a decision on whether to retire the experimental farmland for conservation or keep farming. Every decision had a payoff, framed in Tanzania shillings. The environmental payoff resulted from a conservation decision constituted the outcome of interest. The variable of interest is PES which includes T1 and T2. The personal values were elicited from a post-experiment survey. For a detailed description, please refer to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108152 and https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1493672 2. Methods for processing the data: The outcomes are reported as the average environmental benefit per parcel and the proportion of total environmental benefits. The average benefit per parcel is calculated by dividing the total environmental benefits contributed by a farmer by the number of endowed experimental parcels. The proportion of total benefits is determined by the farmer’s contribution relative to the total potential environmental benefits. Personal values—biospheric and egoistic—were computed as average scores based on the indicators used to construct each value type, see the details here https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1493672. 3. Instrument- and/or software-specific information needed to interpret the data: N/A 4. People involved in sample collection, processing, analysis and/or submission: Qambemeda Masala Nyanghura, Lisa Biber-Freudenberger and Jan Börner participated in conceptualization of the study, processing of data, analysis and submission. Nyanghura together with the three local enumerators participated in data collection. 5. Describe any quality-assurance procedures performed on the data: The data were independently reviewed by a researcher. 6. Standards and calibration information: N/A 7. Environmental/experimental conditions: N/A E DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR: “Dataset_Designing_Conservation_Incentives_Ecological_Corridors.xlx” 1. Variable list including full names and definitions of column headings for tabular data: Day_of_game – A numeric variable indicating the day on which the experiment or game was conducted. Ind_id_no – A unique identifier assigned to each individual participant. Player_no – A numeric variable representing the player's number within the experiment. Treatment_vs_control – A dummy variable indicating whether a player is in the treatment group (1) or the control group (0). Equal_vs_unequal – A dummy variable indicating whether a player belongs to the equal (1) or unequal (0) sub-group. Small_vs_large_farmer – A dummy variable indicating whether a player is a smallholder farmer (1) or a large-scale farmer (0). Rounds_of_games – A categorical variable indicating the round of the game, with possible values 1, 2, or 3. T0_conserv_senst – A dummy variable indicating whether a player was exposed to conservation sensitization in a given round of the game (1) or not (0). T1_fixed_payment – A dummy variable indicating whether a player is exposed only to the fixed payment treatment (1) or not (0). T2_fixed_payment_and_aggl_bonus – A dummy variable indicating whether a player is exposed to the combined fixed payment and agglomeration bonus treatment (1) or not (0). Average_env_benefit_per_parcel – A continuous variable representing the average environmental benefit per parcel. Total_env_benef_prop – A continuous but censored variable representing the proportion of total environmental benefits. Age – Age of respondent in years Educ – Years of schooling of the respondent Hh_Income – Household income of the last year in TZS presented in 1,000,000s Sex – Sex of the respondent (Dummy: 1 = Male, 0 = Female) Famil_size – Number of people who sleep in the same household on a regular basis Farm_Own – Farm size owned by household in acres Trust – The level of trust the respondent has to the most of people in the community (Likert scale: 0 = fully disagree, 10 = fully agree). LandLoss_15Yrs – Whether a farmer experienced any land loss over the last 15 years either through reallocation or expropriation (Dummy: 1 = Yes, 0 = No) Decision_Land – The authority of the subject with regards to decisions related to land (purchase, selling, reallocation etc) at household level (Dummy: 1 = subject is the main decision maker or has shared power in land decisions, 0 = subject has no power in decisions) Relative_Friend – Whether a farmer had relative or friend in the same experiment group (Dummy: 1 = Yes, 0 = No) Involve_Conservation – The extent to which farmer involved in conservation activities (Likert scale: 0 = Not at all, 10 = Extremely involved) Marital_status – A marital status of the respondent (Dummy: 1 = Married 0 = Not married) Corridor – A corridor (Dummy: 1 = Igando-Igawa wildlife corridor, 0 = Baga-Kisimagonja ecological corridor) Enumerator – The unique ID of the enumerator, with possible values of 1, 2,3 or 4. Egoistic – The egoistic values presented in a Likert scale score with a possible range of -1 (Not egoistic) to 7 (highly egoistic) Biospheric – The biospheric values presented in a Likert scale score with a possible range of -1 (Not biospheric) to 7 (highly biospheric) Fairnes_land_distr – fairness in distribution of experimental land, measured as a perceived fairness on one’s land endowment, relative to others in the same experimental group. This is presented as a Likert scale with a possible range of 0 (not fair at all) to 10 (very fair).