IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v146y2018icp347-358.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Context Matters: Exploring the Cost-effectiveness of Fixed Payments and Procurement Auctions for PES

Author

Listed:
  • Lundberg, Liv
  • Persson, U. Martin
  • Alpizar, Francisco
  • Lindgren, Kristian

Abstract

Successfully implemented payment for ecosystem services (PES) programs can provide both conservation of nature and financial support to rural communities. In this paper, we explore how PES programs can be designed so as to maximize the amount of additional ecosystem services provided for a given budget. We also provide a brief summary of the use of auction mechanisms in real world PES programs. To explore the potential additionality of different PES program designs we use a conceptual agent based simulation model where payments are either fixed, or set through a uniform or discriminatory auction. The program can also be designed to target payments to land-owners based on their provision of ecosystem services. Theoretically, auctions should be the most effective design, especially if payments are differentiated and targeted by ecosystem service provision. However, what we find is that the context in which the PES program is implemented—baseline compliance with program standards among the participants, correlation between opportunity costs and ecosystem services in the landscape, heterogeneity in costs and budget size—has a determining impact on the relative effectiveness of the different payment designs, with fixed payments schemes being much more effective than auctions in certain settings. Our findings suggest that context should be taken into serious consideration when a PES program design is chosen.

Suggested Citation

  • Lundberg, Liv & Persson, U. Martin & Alpizar, Francisco & Lindgren, Kristian, 2018. "Context Matters: Exploring the Cost-effectiveness of Fixed Payments and Procurement Auctions for PES," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 347-358.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:146:y:2018:i:c:p:347-358
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.11.021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180091730188X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.11.021?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katherine Reichelderfer & William G. Boggess, 1988. "Government Decision Making and Program Performance: The Case of the Conservation Reserve Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(1), pages 1-11.
    2. Wunder, Sven, 2015. "Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 234-243.
    3. Steven Schilizzi & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann, 2007. "Assessing the Performance of Conservation Auctions: An Experimental Study," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 497-515.
    4. Paul J. Ferraro & R. David Simpson, 2002. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Conservation Payments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(3), pages 339-353.
    5. Schilizzi, Steven & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2007. "Assessing the performance of conservation auctions: an experimental study," 2007 Conference (51st), February 13-16, 2007, Queenstown, New Zealand 10436, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. Michael A. Arnold & Joshua M. Duke & Kent D. Messer, 2013. "Adverse Selection in Reverse Auctions for Ecosystem Services," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(3), pages 387-412.
    7. Jacob R. Fooks & Kent D. Messer & Joshua M. Duke, 2015. "Dynamic Entry, Reverse Auctions, and the Purchase of Environmental Services," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(1), pages 57-75.
    8. Thilo W. Glebe, 2013. "Conservation Auctions: Should Information about Environmental Benefits Be Made Public?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(3), pages 590-605.
    9. Cason, Timothy N. & Gangadharan, Lata & Duke, Charlotte, 2003. "A laboratory study of auctions for reducing non-point source pollution," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 446-471, November.
    10. Timothy N. Cason & Lata Gangadharan, 2005. "A Laboratory Comparison of Uniform and Discriminative Price Auctions for Reducing Non-point Source Pollution," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(1).
    11. Geret S. DePiper, 2015. "To Bid or Not to Bid: The Role of Participation Rates in Conservation Auction Outcomes," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1157-1174.
    12. Ajayi, Oluyede C. & Jack, B. Kelsey & Leimona, Beria, 2012. "Auction Design for the Private Provision of Public Goods in Developing Countries: Lessons from Payments for Environmental Services in Malawi and Indonesia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 1213-1223.
    13. Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Carel Van der Hamsvoort, 1997. "Auctioning Conservation Contracts: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(2), pages 407-418.
    14. Cyrus Samii & Matthew Lisiecki & Parashar Kulkarni & Laura Paler & Larry Chavis & Birte Snilstveit & Martina Vojtkova & Emma Gallagher, 2014. "Effects of Payment for Environmental Services (PES) on Deforestation and Poverty in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 1-95.
    15. Paul J. Burke, 2016. "Undermined by Adverse Selection: Australia's Direct Action Abatement Subsidies," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 35(3), pages 216-229, September.
    16. B. Kelsey Jack, 2013. "Private Information and the Allocation of Land Use Subsidies in Malawi," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(3), pages 113-135, July.
    17. Ferraro, Paul J., 2008. "Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 810-821, May.
    18. Alix-Garcia, Jennifer & De Janvry, Alain & Sadoulet, Elisabeth, 2008. "The role of deforestation risk and calibrated compensation in designing payments for environmental services," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 375-394, June.
    19. Martin Persson, U. & Alpízar, Francisco, 2013. "Conditional Cash Transfers and Payments for Environmental Services—A Conceptual Framework for Explaining and Judging Differences in Outcomes," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 124-137.
    20. Atakelty Hailu & Steven Schilizzi, 2004. "Are Auctions More Efficient Than Fixed Price Schemes When Bidders Learn?," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 29(2), pages 147-168, December.
    21. Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Sven Wunder & Manuel Ruiz-Pérez & Rocio del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, 2016. "Global Patterns in the Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, March.
    22. Engel, Stefanie, 2016. "The Devil in the Detail: A Practical Guide on Designing Payments for Environmental Services," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 9(1-2), pages 131-177, July.
    23. Jan Börner & Kathy Baylis & Esteve Corbera & Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Paul J Ferraro & Jordi Honey-Rosés & Renaud Lapeyre & U Martin Persson & Sven Wunder, 2016. "Emerging Evidence on the Effectiveness of Tropical Forest Conservation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-11, November.
    24. Claassen, Roger & Cattaneo, Andrea & Johansson, Robert, 2008. "Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs: U.S. experience in theory and practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 737-752, May.
    25. Timothy N. Cason & Lata Gangadharan, 2004. "Auction Design for Voluntary Conservation Programs," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(5), pages 1211-1217.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Herring, Matthew W. & Garnett, Stephen T. & Zander, Kerstin K., 2022. "Producing rice while conserving the habitat of an endangered waterbird: Incentives for farmers to integrate water management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    2. Yan Yu & Ya Wu & Pan Wang & Yili Zhang & Liang Emlyn Yang & Xian Cheng & Jianzhong Yan, 2021. "Grassland Subsidies Increase the Number of Livestock on the Tibetan Plateau: Why Does the “Payment for Ecosystem Services” Policy Have the Opposite Outcome?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-20, May.
    3. Samuel D. Bell & Nadia A. Streletskaya, 2019. "The Random Quantity Mechanism: Laboratory and Field Tests of a Novel Cost-Revealing Procurement Mechanism," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 899-921, July.
    4. Friederike Lehn & Enno Bahrs, 2018. "Land-Use Competition or Compatibility between Nature Conservation and Agriculture? The Impact of Protected Areas on German Standard Farmland Values," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-20, April.
    5. Luc Behaghel & Karen Macours & Julie Subervie, 2018. "Can RCTs help improve the design of CAP," Working Papers hal-01974425, HAL.
    6. Luc Behaghel & Karen Macours & Julie Subervie, 2019. "How can randomised controlled trials help improve the design of the common agricultural policy?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 473-493.
    7. Ito, Junichi & Feuer, Hart N. & Kitano, Shinichi & Asahi, Haruka, 2019. "Assessing the effectiveness of Japan's community-based direct payment scheme for hilly and mountainous areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 62-75.
    8. Berthet, Alice & Vincent, Audrey & Fleury, Philippe, 2021. "Water quality issues and agriculture: An international review of innovative policy schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    9. Nguyen, Chi & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2023. "Assessing the performance of agglomeration bonus in budget-constrained conservation auctions," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334544, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    10. Ferré, Marie & Engel, Stefanie & Gsottbauer, Elisabeth, 2018. "Which Agglomeration Payment for a Sustainable Management of Organic Soils in Switzerland? – An Experiment Accounting for Farmers' Cost Heterogeneity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 24-33.
    11. Oliveira Fiorini, Ana Carolina & Mullally, Conner & Swisher, Marilyn & Putz, Francis E., 2020. "Forest cover effects of payments for ecosystem services: Evidence from an impact evaluation in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    12. Cardona Santos, Elsa & Storm, Hugo & Rasch, Sebastian, 2021. "The cost-effectiveness of conservation auctions in the presence of asset specificity: An agent-based model," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    13. Nguyen, Chi & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Hanley, Nick & Schilizzi, Steven & Iftekhar, Sayed, 2022. "Spatial Coordination Incentives for landscape-scale environmental management: A systematic review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    14. Thilo W. Glebe, 2022. "The influence of contract length on the performance of sequential conservation auctions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(2), pages 739-764, March.
    15. Ito, Junichi, 2022. "Program design and heterogeneous treatment effects of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    16. Harriet Toto Olita & Md. Sayed Iftekhar & Steven G. M. Schilizzi, 2023. "Optimizing contract allocation for risky conservation tenders," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 25(1), pages 63-85, January.
    17. De Petris, Caterina & Drechsler, Martin, 2023. "Harnessing social norms to gain cost-effectiveness in conservation schemes through dynamic scheme design: implications of bounded rationality and other-regarding preferences for Payments for Ecosystem," MPRA Paper 119534, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 03 Jan 2024.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sharma, Bijay P. & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yu, T. Edward, 2019. "Designing cost-efficient payments for forest-based carbon sequestration: An auction-based modeling approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 182-194.
    2. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    3. Messer, Kent D. & Duke, Joshua M. & Lynch, Lori & Li, Tongzhe, 2017. "When Does Public Information Undermine the Efficiency of Reverse Auctions for the Purchase of Ecosystem Services?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 212-226.
    4. Bruno Wichmann & Peter Boxall & Scott Wilson & Orsolya Pergery, 2017. "Auctioning Risky Conservation Contracts," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1111-1144, December.
    5. Banerjee, Simanti & Conte, Marc N., 2017. "Balancing Complexity and Rent-Seeking in Multi-Attribute Conservation Procurement Auctions: Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment," 2018 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 5-7, 2018, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 266293, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Harriet Toto Olita & Md. Sayed Iftekhar & Steven G. M. Schilizzi, 2023. "Optimizing contract allocation for risky conservation tenders," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 25(1), pages 63-85, January.
    7. Börner, Jan & Baylis, Kathy & Corbera, Esteve & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss & Honey-Rosés, Jordi & Persson, U. Martin & Wunder, Sven, 2017. "The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 359-374.
    8. Markus Groth, 2009. "The transferability and performance of payment-by-results biodiversity conservation procurement auctions: empirical evidence from northernmost Germany," Working Paper Series in Economics 119, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
    9. Vogt, Nora & Bizer, Kilian, 2013. "Lock-in effects in competitive bidding schemes for payments for ecosystem services: Revisiting the fundamental transformation," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 158, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    10. Thilo W. Glebe, 2022. "The influence of contract length on the performance of sequential conservation auctions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(2), pages 739-764, March.
    11. Boxall, Peter C. & Perger, Orsolya & Packman, Katherine & Weber, Marian, 2017. "An experimental examination of target based conservation auctions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 592-600.
    12. Liu, Zhaoyang & Banerjee, Simanti & Cason, Timothy N. & Hanley, Nick & Liu, Qi & Xu, Jintao & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2023. "Spatially Coordinated Conservation Auctions: A Framed Field Experiment Focusing on Farmland Wildlife Conservation in China," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334572, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    13. Schilizzi, Steven & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2009. "Predicting the performance of conservation tenders when information on bidders's costs is limited," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 48171, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    14. Simanti Banerjee & Anthony Kwasnica & James Shortle, 2015. "Information and Auction Performance: A Laboratory Study of Conservation Auctions for Spatially Contiguous Land Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 61(3), pages 409-431, July.
    15. Laura Brown & Elizabeth Troutt & Cynthia Edwards & Brian Gray & Wanjing Hu, 2011. "A Uniform Price Auction for Conservation Easements in the Canadian Prairies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(1), pages 49-60, September.
    16. Rolfe, John & Whitten, Stuart & Windle, Jill, 2017. "The Australian experience in using tenders for conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 611-620.
    17. Valle, Haydn & Capon, Timothy & Harris, Michael & Reeson, Andrew, 2012. "Coordination and Strategic Behaviour in Landscape Auctions," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124466, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    18. Pengfei Liu, 2021. "Balancing Cost Effectiveness and Incentive Properties in Conservation Auctions: Experimental Evidence from Three Multi-award Reverse Auction Mechanisms," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 78(3), pages 417-451, March.
    19. Cardona Santos, Elsa & Storm, Hugo & Rasch, Sebastian, 2021. "The cost-effectiveness of conservation auctions in the presence of asset specificity: An agent-based model," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    20. Kean Siang Ch’Ng & Suet Leng Khoo, 2015. "Market Mechanisms To Allocate Heritage Conservation Fund: An Experimental Study," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 60(05), pages 1-19, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Payment for ecosystem services; Conservation auctions; Auction efficiency; Additionality; Benefit targeting; Agent based modelling;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy
    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • C63 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computational Techniques

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:146:y:2018:i:c:p:347-358. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.