 Hello everybody. I'm sorry it took me a while to enter the room. I think we have so many participants that the system needs a little more time today. And therefore let's give it one more minute and then we'll start. Okay because we don't want to waste too much time of our discussion later on I think we will start. Hello. Good morning. Good afternoon everybody. And welcome to the fifth edition of the Delta Talks. Just to remind everybody this is a webinar series initiated with the Wageningen University and Research and the Asian MegaDeltas Initiative. We started small with only the inner teams and the smaller teams and we have now started to expand our invitations a little bit because we thought the webinars have been so interesting and successful that we wanted to reach a larger audience. So thanks everybody for joining and maybe so I don't see Katarine who usually is my co-host but I see Marianne. Do you want to say a few words? Yes welcome everybody. Katarine is sending her greetings. She cannot attend today so I will replace her and I'm very curious to see and hear the presentations from today looking forward. I hope that the people really managed to enter. I also thought what is happening and I also forwarded now to even a few other people who couldn't even not find the link so it's really a big audience and that is looking forward. Thanks. Thank you. So yeah today we have two presentations actually. It's about behavioral research. One focusing on conflict of adaptation options and one about migration as an adaptation climate change adaptation option. Before we start we will add a registration link for invites to this webinar to the next newsletter that we will be sending out shortly so we don't always invite all participants that we may know so that some people who are interested can register and they will receive invites to not crowd everybody's inbox more than necessary. But without further ado now let's start and I'm not sure who starts. I see Zung has her camera up so I assume it's her and I suggest we have both presentations that are about 10 to 15 minutes back to back and then we move into discussion later on so please note down all your comments and questions. Zung, the floor is yours. Thank you. Let me share my screen first. Okay can you see my screen? Yes we can. Okay great. Hello everyone. My name is Phuong Zung Mueh. I'm a PhD researcher at the Buckingham University and research and also the Alliance of Bioversity International and SEAT. Thank you for having me today and today I will present our research about conflict and cooperation in high climate transitional agricultural zones in Vietnam and this work has been done together with Professor Francisco Alpisa from Buckingham University and research and also Dr. Patrick Nelson from Erie. So let me start with some motivation for this work. So the research has been like motivated by the team of like climate security so it has been discussing that climate change has security implications and it can lead to conflict and also climate adaptation strategies are expected to reduce this climate change impact and improve human security but sometimes it might not be the case and some research points out the risk of minor adaptation where like poorly desired adaptation strategies can lead to more vulnerable to climate change impacts and sometimes it also can create further conflicts between different actors so that's why kind of in this research we want to look at the some relationship between climate adaptation and conflicts and cooperation also and we look at the conflict and we want to use the behavioral experiment to look at the conflict and cooperation and literature on experiment research has suggested like factor conflict like inequality aversion of fear or competition for resources. So we look at the we are interested in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam where it's like very important food production region of Vietnam and Southeast Asia and it's also one of the most vulnerable areas to climate change impacts so different climate adaptation strategies have been implemented in the region like such as alternative land use or alternative labor use then here in this research we are particularly interested in the transition between right and streams in like right and stream area of the Mekong Delta and this kind of like land use transition usually happening at community community level and this season should be made in majority so sometimes conflict may emerge as part of this transition like you do a decision making power or opportunity for example farmers like rice farmer want to move to rice stream but then like majority of his neighbors just do not want to move to rice stream and he's usually cannot do that because the majority don't want to do that and he might not be happy and maybe there's some tension and conflicts between neighborhoods so in this research we want to explore the role of decision making power and opportunity cost on affecting the conflict and behavior and cooperation behavior of farmer so we ask how do farmer likes a decision making power affect their conflict and cooperation behaviors and how do farmer opportunity cost also affect these behaviors so we did develop the conceptual framework from the pro and smith like utility function basically telling that inequality negatively affect utility and and we are like first step is at the agency which is the decision making power and we argue that decision making of power can play a role affecting utility and behavior and the next step we also add the opportunity cost because we also believe that opportunity cost can be an important factor too so our hypothesis is that farmer without agency meaning like like a decision making power are more likely to behave spyfully and less likely to cooperate and a farmer without agency facing hard and facing higher opportunity costs are also more likely to behave spyfully and less likely to cooperate so to test this hypothesis we use the behavioral experiment in two provinces, Makhlio and Kien Giang of Vietnam and the we conducted a series of big behavioral games it's including like investment game joy of destruction game and public good game we so the the first one is the public the the investment game where farmer was randomly assigned to four types of farmer very good at stream good at stream very good at rise good at rise and note that the very good types are facing higher opportunity costs in this game farmer can make the investment decision on whether to invest in right or stream and whether to invest highly highly or moderately so the the after the first game we also in the first game when we randomly match farmer to each other and then they will play in pair for the the the the rest of the the experimental session uh we after the first good game we will randomly select the one who makes the decision so kind of like create a random selection of farmer having no agency or having agency and then they enter the second game the second game can be joy of destruction game or public good game so the order is uh is uh is uh interchangeable between these two games to to to control for order effect and then um in the joy of destruction game farmer will have the chance to to deduct partner money um but they also have to pay a bit pay for that action uh in the public good game farmer have the farmer has a chance to contribute to the a public good way it can benefit to the community and to them um so that's the idea of the game we also implemented a questionnaire survey and and in total we have 360 households or like we're randomly selected through a monthly state sampling methods and then we have the in for for x game session we have 12 farmers so in total we have 30 game sessions in 30 village okay so now it's come to the result uh first is the joy of destruction game we um okay before uh presenting the result I would like to say that we did register our design and hypothesis before implementing the data collection uh through like submitting our pre-analysis plan to e-gap and uh the result of the joy of destruction game uh as you can see on the graph um the the blue bar is the farmer without agency and the orange bar is farmer with agency and you can see across of the group um especially in the full sample in the very good group farmer without agency are more likely to deduct other income and then the level of absolute deduction is also significantly higher for farmer without agency but for the good work here as you can see the the different are not significant um and then the effect the different effect seem coming from the very good farmer group who have higher opportunity cost as I mentioned earlier in the presentation um and then then this is kind of like confirming that okay farmer with age on average farmer with agency without agency are more likely to to behave uh spitefully but the effect coming stronger from the one who have higher opportunity cost so we also run regression uh to take this result so we use the longest estimator um on the to take the effects on the destructive behavior and then we use the OLS estimator to take the the effect on absolute level reduction and in the as you can see the at the full sample effect of having no agency is significant um significant also in but then in the good farmer group is lose the significant and the effect is stronger uh like strongest in the group of very good farmers so basically busy results saying that um like the agency could lead to the increase about um 19 to 26 percentage points uh of deductive behavior in among very good farmers yeah so result for the public good contribution um interesting but not very significant like so we we we were checking results and we believe that it is because the group of um but because the contribution level is very high across all of the group it's like more than 80 percent uh always like more than 80 percent of farmers contributing the to the public good and so that way it's more difficult to detect the difference the significant difference between words um regarding the absolute level of contribution we also see that there's a significant difference between the one who who without agency and the one with agency so without agency farmers uh are more like uh are contributing less than the the farmer with agency the regression result also saying similar stories but then um the so there's no significant effects uh in term of like where the farmer farmer contribute to public good or not but uh in term of like uh effect on the absolute contribution we see uh having no agency have significant effect only in the model without control variable in the model with control variable um you can see that it lose the the significant again uh and this is kind of like saying another story like other other control variable have stronger effect and it and then the the um the no agency variables is no longer significant conclusion so our results suggest that farmers without this isn't making power are more likely to exhibit spiteful behaviors and then this is kind of indicator of conflict um the effect is stronger and more significant among farmers with higher opportunity cost like which is the very good farmer group and because they pay higher larger trade off in the first game and uh the effect of having no agency no agency is not significant significant for cooperation behaviors mainly because of high cooperation in own groups um some implication of this research uh we see that the results suggest that land use planning for climate adaptation need to involve empowering empowering farmer to make informed decisions about their land use practices and also a policymaker should aim for more equitable record resource allocation in adaptation policy to minimize the perceived opportunity cost like maybe through um uh ensuring fair access to resource like land water to owner the own affected people and then also redo to to redo the result conflict of conflicts over resource scarcity so we see that in general life in the field experiment is useful and then to understand farmer behaviors and it's also kind of like create very fun experience for farmers they really enjoy the work the the the the game session and we also think it's have like potential benefit to explore further in future research thank you very much for your attention and I look forward to your comment and suggestion thank you very much I would love to go straight into questions and discussion but we have a second study to present so let's move to the second one first and everybody please note down all the questions you have um and that is being presented by Katie I believe go ahead Katie yes thank you very much let me share my screen okay can you see it in presentation mode nope we see it in the normal slight preparation mode yeah no okay thank you very much um so my name is Katie Nelson and um I have been involved in in both of the researchers the one that Zung just presented and also this one that I will present um as an advisor to phd students so um Susa uh from Wagon Egan uh worked on this research and also Kung who is um an employee of Erie in Vietnam uh I am also located in the Hanoi Vietnam office for the International Rice Research Institute and today I will be providing um some evidence that we have from choice experiments on climate change and migration decisions um so just to start off this work is taking place in Bangladesh and Bangladesh is a low-lying uh Deltaic nation that has high vulnerability to climate change and climate induced disasters um the specific area where we are doing research is in Hatia Island which I'm not sure if you can see where my my mouse is moving here but it's at the very south part of uh the mouth of the Meghna River and the Ganges River and it's in the Bay of Bengal this area is primarily um agriculture and fishing in terms of livelihoods for the residents there and the island does face um frequent and severe uh rapid onset climate change which is characterized by erosion, cyclones, and flooding and it also experiences slow onset change from increasing saline intrusion, tidal inundation from sea level rise, and increasing temperatures. Okay um so what the reason for the reasons why we undertook this research and in this particular location is that there's relatively a lot of anecdotal evidence saying that under conditions of extreme climate change um migration is one of the possible adaptation strategies that people will take um however uh there is relatively little evidence to support this causal relationship and so that's something that we wanted to actually undertake is um a methodology that can show that there's there is some causal relationship between the two and also um what the effects are uh so migration it's a very complex choice um that can be influenced by social, economic, cultural, and ecological conditions of uh both where an individual resides and also where they're considering migrating to um it because this is a complex choice that has multiple different um conditions and attributes attributed to those choices um it's difficult to disentangle the individual effects that each one of these may have on the migration decision um and just asking people um straight up you know if you experience um uh a climate disaster are you likely to migrate um can you know also kind of overshadow the fact that there may be economic drivers that are influencing that more so than the climate change and there can also be subconscious drivers which people may not even realize and so therefore it it can be difficult for them to recall or put specific weight on the different attributes um so the aim of the study is to investigate the the strength of each of those different types of drivers um and what their relationship is between climatic events and migration decisions now um we chose a methodology that is called choice experiments or discrete choice experiments and these are a form of choice modeling where participants are presented with a number of different alternatives and ask to choose their most preferred option based on the the alternatives that they're presented with um and if you see in the picture on the right there that's just an example um of of how this might be used it's it's often used in consumer market research um to understand what are the traits of a particular product that influence purchasing decisions of consumers but this has also been extended into non-market evaluation of environmental goods and services um and so that's why we chose to use this particular approach is because um it it's difficult to put a value for example on some environmental attributes or also some choices such as migration or moving um to a different location and um so we thought this would be an interesting approach to to try and use in this type of a setting um this based on our literature review this is the first time that um in published research at least that this approach has been used to elicit preferences around migration choices and migration decisions um so uh this this type of theory is um using the random utility theory which describes it the choices um that people will make is what utilize it maximizes their utility of the particular uh decision uh and so to move into more of the sampling strategy um so we used a stratified stratified random sampling approach um to ensure that there was inclusion of different types of subgroups where there's multiple age ranges um specifically we also wanted to focus on gender and ensure that we included um you know a large number of women in the sample um particularly because in in Bangladesh oftentimes women may not have the decision-making power so we also wanted to understand from their perspective um about how migration decisions are made in their point of view um also including occupation and different economic classes um we sampled from 14 different villages uh across six different unions um there you know is relative uh homogeneity across the different unions so we don't expect that there would be differences between where people are from in terms of um the union or the village but more so that there may be differences across classes um income age group gender and altogether we sampled 337 participants um so this uh is an example of the traits that we focused on and so we had five different traits being climate in the location uh in the area of origin the distance for migration the type of migration the social network at the destination where they would migrate and the income difference um on the right side we had uh up to three different levels for each one of those attributes and so for climate in the area of origin we had moderate levels of both slow and sudden onset change which basically is the status quo it's what they experience um on a annual basis and then we had um alternate versions which were was extreme slow onset change and that included increased salinity and sea level rise um as well as erosion and inundation and then extreme sudden onset change which was characterized by increasing severity of um extreme weather like uh river or sorry cyclones floods and river erosion apologies I think I put I think I also mentioned erosion in the slow onset change but that should be in the extreme onset change then we had three different levels of the migration distance which were uh near medium and far so up to 50 kilometers was considered near 50 to 300 kilometers was medium and that's basically the distance between Hatia island and the major metropolitan area of Dhaka in Bangladesh and then far was over 300 kilometers the type of migration was essentially temporary which was defined as under six months or longer term considered over six months and then there were two levels for the social network at oops sorry at the destination um including no close relationships with family members or friends or other relatives and then the second level was that there were close relationships so you you would know somebody and have a close relationship in the destination where you're going and finally for income there were three levels one was uh essentially no difference so income is comparable to the living costs they currently experience versus 20 increase in income um compared to the cost of living or a 50 percent increase in income now this is just an example to show um what it would look like for a participant and so they're presented with um one choice set here and this provides two scenarios so scenario a and scenario b are both migration choices and scenario c is an option not to migrate at all um and so where we can see here from scenario a versus scenario b is that scenario a is characterized by extreme sudden change um versus just a moderate level of change um medium term migration or medium distance migration compared to far distance migration short term versus long term no close relationships versus close relationships and then changes in the income and so a participant would then make a decision um between whether they prefer scenario a scenario b or scenario c not to move at all and each participant answered six different card sets so they were presented with um essentially six of these choices this is what the um experimental setting looked like so these were one-to-one interviews with people and they went through the choice set first and then they were presented with a survey questionnaire which also include the human security index and questions around migration um Zung also mentioned those human security index in in her study and that was created specifically adapted from a urban human security index to a rural setting and it was used in both of these studies um the characteristics of the sample were 60 men and 40 women uh the majority were married um the group was mostly between the ages of 30 to 39 although there was although there was quite a range in age so that only represented 31 percent of the sample um majority of the students had or sorry if the respondents had no school education um and that was 40 percent of the population then primary was the highest level for 31 percent of the respondents and secondary school of 20 percent the majority of the respondents ranked themselves um on a scale of one to ten around two or two and a half um at 40 45 and 29 percent for each of those um for their perceived economic status so basically um on a scale of one to five five being the most wealthy and one being the most poor um they would rank them where they felt they they fell in that uh range the most popular household size was five to seven people 52 percent of the of the sample and um only 18 percent of the respondents had moved outside of Hatia in the past and um we consider that yes that the migration doesn't include moving um to a different area of Hatia but actually moving off the island can we move to the results please yes um so what we have here is that we can see in comparison to the stay uh in in the location and not migrate um so slow onset change and sudden onset change both have a negative relationship with migration that means that people were more likely to migrate under moderate change than they were under extreme change both slow or sudden um people were also more likely to move within 50 kilometers um compared to the medium or far distances and uh the network at the location and that the type of uh work was not affecting that was not significant um the income did have a positive relationship with migration so the more income they received the more likelihood they were to uh to migrate just in terms of um significance in uh in their demographic qualities uh age was a significant indicator for migration so younger people were more likely to to migrate men were more likely to migrate single people although there weren't very many in the sample were more likely to migrate um household sizes that had large that had more people in the household had higher rates of migration or higher uh preference to migrate and um the more income that families had the more likely they were to choose migration uh also the more likely that someone had migrated in the past uh was indicative that they were more likely to migrate in again in the future um just to give uh some weight in terms of value on this um an income needed to be increased by 14 percent in order for people to move um according to because there was extreme slow onset change and only 9 percent if there was extreme sudden onset change uh they needed an increase in income of 20 percent uh in order to move the medium distance and interesting only 17 percent to move uh far distance and that could be also because people were likely to know uh no people or have relatives in the farther distance uh which was in oh i'm sorry i'm sorry in the medium distance because that was in DACA okay sorry just concluding now um so some of the the results and findings are that extreme slow onset change and extreme sudden onset change are less likely to induce migration than moderate levels of uh change residents are more likely to migrate with uh more of an increase in income climate drivers do become relevant at a 9 percent increase in income for extreme change uh or 14 percent at slow slow onset change and um just to follow up this study will be supported by qualitative research to understand more from um the participants about what what their choices why they made those choices and um linked to literature on causal drivers of migration and then finally these results can be used to inform um policy or how to design policy for more vulnerable populations that's all from my side thank you thank you very much katie and also zung again um i'm sure we have lots of questions and comments uh please raise your hand and then uh you can ask your question eros yeah uh good morning and uh thank you for thank you both the presenters for nice uh presentations and my question is uh to Dr. Katie uh because i'm from Bangladesh and i can relate a lot with the research and i see the value of it i have uh two questions if i may if i'm allowed to ask one is like whether the participants did they uh like do they realize there is a impact of climate change on their life and the second would be like when you were taking these um different variables one thing i would like to know whether you have asked them if they had assets on the ground such as like houses land or ponds would they be likely to like migrate or that stops them to take the decision okay yes thank you very much for the questions um yeah the in terms of are they aware of climate change um and yes they experience this all the time um but because it is something they experience all the time and in cycles so there are some years that are extreme and some years that are more moderate um i don't know that what we didn't see is that they're recognizing um that the moderate climate change becomes more extreme because it is a slow change um so their environment is changing constantly all the time even the shape of the island is is changing due to um movement of sedimentation coming from the river so um i would say they're absolutely aware of um environmental change but whether it's being attributed to what we would consider anthropogenic climate change we we don't have evidence specifically for how they would look at those differences in in terms of the second one we do ask about their livelihood and like if they have land and land sizes um and then what are their main sources um in income but uh either it wasn't significant as part of the regression regression in terms of size of land holding um or it was combined yeah no i think it was not um it was not significant in the regression which is why it wasn't highlighted um but in terms of doing like a full asset questionnaire we did not do so we didn't ask about do they have like refrigerators cell phone um how many animals do they have so uh we don't have the the full list of assets yeah thank you but the question was whether this having this asset stops them from migrating or taking a decision on migration so let's say you have a large house and a big like business on farmland or fisheries would you like to migrate if climate change actually hits you very hard that was the question and then it raises another question whether you have taken into account different uh even though you have told us already like whether there are farmers or there are fishermen because there are always conflict in the coastal region of Bangladesh among the farmers and the fishermen so but like uh just to highlight like whether that was taken into account like the having assets does it stop them to migrate that's it but thank you thank you for the answer yes thank you very much um i'd have to look if we separate fishers and farmers in terms of the regression but that's very useful information so thank you and i will look into that we have more questions uh and i see a hand from vietnam please thanks very very nice information and i have one question for each of you maybe i'm mixing some information first for you what what what what do you mean farmers and what do you mean rich and good and very good farmers uh in your visions uh for cutting um hey you got any information about significant uh effects uh on agis and genus between male and thank you if at the end uh if hey more more time i will just share information i'm thinking thank you professor nyang zhung you want to go first yeah thank you dr nyang for your question um i so in my in the research our the participants are uh we selected to the subject participant as um either rice or stream farmers so they they they cultivating either rice or stream or rice stream in um but also uh in the setting of the game we actually assign them a role so regardless of who they are in the reality we assign them okay randomly whether you follow like whether you are very good at stream very good at rice or good at dry or good at stream so is it kind of like um role playing game uh so it's very random and also um of course when we run the regression we have to control for the actual um actual uh like role that they have but then um it was not significant so we we see actually um when we assign the role um we we we see and also by the setting of the game the very good farmer have like if yeah they are very good at uh stream and and and and they have four options like whether they they invest in rice or invest invest highly in stream or invest moderately in stream or invest highly in rice or moderately in rice each option have like different uh outcome and of course if they are very good at stream they their profit will be highest in in the case of they uh invest highly in stream and their profit will be lowest when they invest highly in rice uh and and for the moderate option it's like in somewhere in between um we try to create like like inequality situation after that and also the the role of the bring the role of opportunity cost in this uh in this game um in we also try to kind of mimics the real situation where where where farmer have different capacity um like some people can be very potentially very good at stream if they invest in for example intensive intensive uh uh stream farming they will will will successful and earn more and then then some farmers like they they they are um like regular farmer than they usually if they invest in uh extensive from um stream farming it would be better for them so that that kind of like this is a game setting we try to play role uh but it's also be multi was motivated by the the real situation in in the medical data of vietnam thank you thanks zoom i hope that answers the question katie there was also a question for you yes if you can just repeat quickly i didn't catch the question the last you mentioned two things that you asked about and i couldn't hear them sorry uh yes um uh have you seen any significant effects on ages and gender on age yes sorry um yes so younger uh people were more likely to migrate and males were more likely to migrate so often in bangladesh um women will migrate but mostly if their husband is migrating so single women migrating is relatively less likely thank you we have another hand and i also saw now that you wrote already questions in the chat tim o gaspik good morning tim o gaspik nalans ministry of foreign affairs thanks for the interesting presentations i i have two questions um i used to work in in Sri Lanka a lot and and i noticed there that a lot of people actually have one or two family members in the middle east to send back remittances um those people will be not in your sample because they're physically not in the folder um to what extent has that had an effect on their on the research uh and i'd be interested to see if age has has an impact my experience uh both in Sri Lanka but also in Darfur is that often people who are farming or a bit older keep trying to do this as long as they can but it's the youth who move away um yes so in terms of the age um yes we did see that that younger people were more likely to migrate um in the survey question we also asked about family members that have migrated um so that is we didn't use that in the regression about the likelihood of that individual to migrate but more have that as a separate data set where we can look at uh things like remittances and um because oftentimes we may have asked one family member about their likelihood to migrate they may not be very willing to migrate but they have five or six other people in the household that have migrated and so that's what we were trying to get at but um we didn't specifically use it as part of the regression for their choice making okay thank you very much uh i see Stefan Weiser has another question yes thank you one short question each uh my question to you was uh more about the fact that this behavior change type of study must in in the literature you you reviewed i assume ahead of this study uh is there any evidence that you found in other countries in other places where this type of an analysis and conclusions coming out of this analysis actually has changed the policy or incentive mechanisms and led to reduce the conflict potential conflict level or spiteful behavior level of certain groups so that's one question to use and then to Katie once you have finalized this analysis in terms of validation would it be interesting to uh go to Dhaka or some other area wherever there are uh you know the migrants are coming pouring into these urban areas or peri urban areas from the south uh to do a similar type of analysis to see that that information actually is validated that we are getting or you're getting out of the studies being done uh in uh in the delta itself thank you thanks Stefan Zung do you want to go first again yeah thank you Stefan a very good question um i so in uh i can say that our research is very much still at the like based on the theory theoretical framework and develop from the theory and bring it into the the game setting which is a bit um like like uh still very much in research than than like development or policy oriented um but then we um in in in the literature uh i can also see that it's actually that's uh you know like like um other research for example people though people doing more in term of like uh the behavior or chain or uh random mic control trial or a random mic control experiment or something around um the the the experiment related to endorsement of real users leaders so though the experiment uh usually um kind of give like a good policy recommendation and also was taken up by by uh policy so i think it's it's it's um will have potentially uh like good implication for for policy uh later for policy implementation um i and i'm sure that that's the research uh how they go into research also research um such as one to bring it into uh more like policy application uh but i must say again that my research is it's still very theoretical yeah um i can also maybe follow on with that um what has been done quite often more in development work is um they'll take the sort of theoretical common pool resource and public goods games and use them as part of the community learning so have the the groups play that actually have to make these kinds of decisions play the games and then reveal the outputs to them and show that when the majority decision is chosen and some people lose out that spiteful behavior can be a result of that and then ask them how they would manage that so i've seen that happen with particularly with irrigation and water systems in india and other countries where they're more using it more as a co-creation in terms of like um the the actual rules and regulations and social norms that the community themselves would come up with um and i think that that is most likely um the way that this should be used as opposed to making high level um policy necessarily like at the national level because the circumstances and context is quite different across even in the same country um in terms of the uh the the question that you had for Bangladesh about validation um we didn't consider going to DACA to validate the study because we would have to find like i think this sampling would be really difficult we'd have to find residents from Hatia um or we would have to at least find residents that come from areas that do have extreme climate change um in the past or in some literature uh that i'm familiar with the way that they did this type of study was um go to families who have migrants and then request can they communicate with the migrants so that would be something we may consider is actually using our sample sites from Hatia and then asking them can we contact through the telephone um you know the people who have left and then either ask them like a series of simple survey questions that can be done over the phone or a very simple type of um game that we that would be very easy to understand over the phone like option a and option b but it has to be very very simplified because um you know they can't see what you're talking about there's no visual representation so it has to be very clear in terms of what the choices are and generally you'd also have to have some way to electronically um send the money to them because these games are based on real real choices that have economic consequences for the most part the choice experiment although was not um the everybody had a similar participant fee there was no change whereas the game that zung played some people earned more and other people earned less based on their decisions yeah thanks for the detailed explanation katie i saw in the chat that mariana i had a few questions do you want to yeah yeah i thought that um i put a question on um how did you both explain what the added values are for participants so to really um yeah take part in the studies and i asked both but i i now will only ask it to zung as our time is short so that this may be a concluding question so how do we convince people to do that and what is in for them so why why should they take part in it so let's zoom what how did you do that with you had a very huge sample yeah yeah yeah so um actually we uh did that like um like we recruit the farmer through like uh of course with the support a lot of support from the local governments um and then uh when they they participated in the the game session and and they also we also pay a bit of compensation but the added value here i think like like through participating the game we also explain that um like okay you are doing some task and later we try to kind of create some some tasks for you to do we try to avoid to saying it's a game so to create a very serious serious serious tasks that they can do think and decide and later we also kind of communicate like okay this is um we try to make everything random to make sure that it will later not to create any conflict post conflict because definitely different people have different like pay off uh so it's also um but then um later we also kind of like communicate with the people like okay you can see that if if you cooperate more you can see both will have more money like uh in the reality it also the same if you contribute more to uh um to the the the public good for example or community or do more community work then is everyone will be beneficial or if you like have destructive behavior you lose other also lose it's kind of like like like like um behavioral um uh lesson kind of afterwards um and uh yeah so so so actually people really enjoy the the game because um people are with doing more structural survey for example and it takes like for example like 30 minutes um uh and then 30 minutes for one hour but then they was like not really like not very interactive and also um it's it's it's uh for them they ask and answer and enumerate the ask and the answer but here they actually make some decision and they kind of have some consequences after that this season which is make them like more more kind of like um engage in the the the game and um yeah and as you can see that uh usually the the the atmosphere after the the game session was quite by nice and people are actually happy to answer our survey more the future yeah like after the game yeah thanks thanks for for sharing those those insights and indeed we have to stop it here as mariana pointed out we are uh done with our hour today we'll have one more uh delta talks in december the next one the 20th of december and as we're alternating with speakers from amd and wacheningen next time uh someone from uh wacheningen will speak mariana do you know already and do you want to give a short sneak preview yes so the the tentative title of the talk is quinoa as a new crop for the meek kong delta in salinity affected areas opportunities and steps to take so that is what we will get on the 20th of december and that is a cooperation between a colleague here from wacheningen and a colleague from travin university sounds very interesting thank you very much uh and thanks everybody for joining today i hope uh to see all of you back in four weeks until then have a good time bye bye thank you thank you bye