IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea14/170287.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Experimental auctions to evaluate incentives for cost-effective agricultural phosphorus abatement in the Great Lakes

Author

Listed:
  • Harris, Leah M.
  • Swinton, Scott M.
  • Shupp, Robert S.

Abstract

Research on payments for environmental services (PES) largely focuses on two contract types – cost-share and annual stewardship payments. But other types of transactions, such as tax credits, green insurance, and price premiums tied to environmental stewardship certification, can also promote conservation. Using experimental conservation procurement auctions we evaluate farmers’ willingness to adopt agricultural best management practices (BMPs) that reduce phosphorus runoff from farm land in the Maumee watershed to help abate damaging algal blooms in western Lake Erie. We determine how bids change depending on the type of transaction offered (e.g. payment, payment with green BMP insurance, tax credit, price premium tied to stewardship certification) to identify cost-effective incentive mechanisms that reduce the most phosphorus runoff per dollar of payment. Two kinds of transactions were found to be less cost-effective: a price premium for product certification and PES with green insurance to protect against yield loss from BMP adoption. The certification price premium cannot spatially target conservation practices to vulnerable locations, so average impact per dollar of payment (and hence cost-effectiveness) is reduced. Green insurance is perceived to have high transaction costs so it elicits demand for higher payments, reducing its cost-effectiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Harris, Leah M. & Swinton, Scott M. & Shupp, Robert S., 2014. "Experimental auctions to evaluate incentives for cost-effective agricultural phosphorus abatement in the Great Lakes," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170287, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea14:170287
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.170287
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/170287/files/AAEAPaper_2014_Harris_Swinton_Shupp_updated.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.170287?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter C. Boxall & Orsolya Perger & Marian Weber, 2013. "Reverse Auctions for Agri-Environmental Improvements: Bid-Selection Rules and Pricing for Beneficial Management Practice Adoption," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 39(s2), pages 23-36, August.
    2. 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.
    3. Schilizzi, Steven & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2013. "Conservation tenders: linking theory and experiments for policy assessment," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(1), pages 1-23.
    4. Mitchell, Paul D., 2004. "Nutrient Best Management Practice Insurance and Farmer Perceptions of Adoption Risk," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(3), pages 657-673, December.
    5. Steven Schilizzi & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann, 2013. "Conservation tenders: linking theory and experiments for policy assessment," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(1), pages 15-37, January.
    6. Kroeger, Timm & Casey, Frank, 2007. "An assessment of market-based approaches to providing ecosystem services on agricultural lands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 321-332, December.
    7. Kurt B. Waldman & John M. Kerr, 2014. "Limitations of Certification and Supply Chain Standards for Environmental Protection in Commodity Crop Production," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 429-449, October.
    8. Shan Ma & Scott M. Swinton & Frank Lupi & Christina Jolejole-Foreman, 2012. "Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Payment-for-Environmental-Services Programmes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(3), pages 604-626, September.
    9. Mitchell, Paul D. & Hennessy, David A., 2003. "Factors Determining Best Management Practice Adoption Incentives and the Impact of Green Insurance," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10418, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    10. Samuel Bowles & Sandra Polania-Reyes, 2012. "Economic Incentives and Social Preferences: Substitutes or Complements?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 50(2), pages 368-425, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Justin Dijk & Erik Ansink, 2018. "Conservation auctions, collusion and the endowment effect," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 18-093/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    5. Meilin Ma & Carson Reeling & Megan N Hughes & Shalamar Armstrong & Richard Roth, 2023. "Comparison of conservation instruments under long-run yield uncertainty and farmer risk aversion," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 50(5), pages 1685-1714.
    6. Tipparat Pongthanapanich & Eva Roth, 2006. "Toward Environmental Responsibility of Thai Shrimp Farming through a Voluntary Management Scheme," Working Papers 70/06, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.
    7. 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.
    8. Gutiérrez-Martín, Carlos & Gómez-Limón, José A. & Montilla-López, Nazaret M., 2020. "Self-financed water bank for resource reallocation to the environment and within the agricultural sector," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    9. Adamson, David, 2013. "Buying Paper and Giving Gold: The Murray Darling Basin Plan," Risk and Sustainable Management Group Working Papers 156481, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    10. 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.
    11. Krishna Pant, 2015. "Uniform-Price Reverse Auction for Estimating the Costs of Reducing Open-Field Burning of Rice Residue in Nepal," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 567-581, November.
    12. Liesbeth Colen & Sergio Gomez y Paloma & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Marianne Lefebvre & Raphaële Préget & Sophie S. Thoyer, 2015. "(How) can economic experiments inform EU agricultural policy?," Post-Print hal-02519194, HAL.
    13. Adrien Coiffard & Raphaële Préget & Mabel Tidball, 2023. "Target versus budget reverse auctions: an online experiment using the strategy method," Working Papers hal-04055743, HAL.
    14. Adrien Coiffard & Raphaële Préget & Mabel Tidball, 2023. "Target versus budget reverse auctions: an online experiment using the strategy method," CEE-M Working Papers hal-04055743, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    15. Rojas, Cristian & Cinner, Joshua, 2020. "Do market and trust contexts spillover into public goods contributions? Evidence from experimental games in Papua New Guinea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    16. Matteo Olivieri & Maria Andreoli & Daniele Vergamini & Fabio Bartolini, 2021. "Innovative Contract Solutions for the Provision of Agri-Environmental Climatic Public Goods: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-22, June.
    17. Vergamini, Daniele & Viaggi, Davide & Raggi, Meri, 2020. "Evaluating the Potential Contribution of Multi-Attribute Auctions to Achieve Agri-Environmental Targets and Efficient Payment Design," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    18. 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).
    19. Gregg, Daniel & Rolfe, John, 2014. "The value of environmental health in agricultural production across nonparametric efficiency quantiles," 2014 Conference, August 28-29, 2014, Nelson, New Zealand 187499, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy; Land Economics/Use;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea14:170287. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.