IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/uersaw/209897.html

Options for Improving Conservation Programs: Insights From Auction Theory and Economic Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Hellerstein, Daniel
  • Higgins, Nathaniel
  • Roberts, Michael

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Agriculture spends over $5 billion per year on conservation programs, mostly on voluntary programs that give financial assistance to farmers and landowners to provide environmental services (such as implementing nutrient management programs or planting native grasses). Since most programs cannot fund all interested parties, program managers must use some mechanism to select applicants. One option is to elicit offers through an auction. This report addresses the use of auctions in conservation programs. It considers how information in the hands of Government officials and rural landowners affects the auction’s performance, and how auction design can reduce Government expenditures or encourage landowners to provide greater environmental services. Results of laboratory experiments are discussed, highlighting shortcomings of common features of conservation program auctions (such as limits on the rent landowners may request), as well as how alternative auction designs can improve performance.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Hellerstein, Daniel & Higgins, Nathaniel & Roberts, Michael, 2015. "Options for Improving Conservation Programs: Insights From Auction Theory and Economic Experiments," Amber Waves:The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural America, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, issue 01, pages 1-1, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:uersaw:209897
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.209897
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/209897/files/http---www_ers_usda_gov-amber-waves-2015-januaryfebruary-options-for-improving-conservation-programs-insights-from-auction-theory-and-economic-experiments_aspx__VgQUYVro0KB_pdfmyurl.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.209897?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Uchida, Emi & Swallow, Stephen K. & Gold, Arthur J. & Opaluch, James & Kafle, Achyut & Merrill, Nathaniel H. & Michaud, Clayton & Gill, Carrie Anne, 2018. "Integrating Watershed Hydrology and Economics to Establish a Local Market for Water Quality Improvement: A Field Experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 17-25.
    2. Banerjee, Simanti & Conte, Marc, "undated". "Complexity and Efficiency in Conservation Auctions: Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment," Cornhusker Economics 307041, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    3. Banerjee, Simanti & Conte, Marc N., "undated". "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.
    4. Wallander, Steven & Paul, Laura A. & Ferraro, Paul J. & Messer, Kent D. & Iovanna, Richard, 2023. "Informational nudges in conservation auctions: A field experiment with U.S. farmers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    5. Banerjee, Simanti & Conte, Marc, "undated". "Role of Information and Communication on Spatial Conservation Auction Performance: Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment," Cornhusker Economics 307053, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    6. Jennifer Ifft & Deepak Rajagopal & Ryan Weldzuis, 2019. "Ethanol Plant Location and Land Use: A Case Study of CRP and the Ethanol Mandate," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 37-55, March.
    7. Ben Ayara, Amine & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Clark, Christopher & Lambert, Dayton & Armsworth, Paul, 2016. "Spatial and Temporal Variation in the Optimal Provision of Forest-based Carbon Storage," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236005, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Stephanie Rosch & Sharon Raszap Skorbiansky & Collin Weigel & Kent D. Messer & Daniel Hellerstein, 2021. "Barriers to Using Economic Experiments in Evidence‐Based Agricultural Policymaking," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 531-555, June.
    9. Liesbeth Colen & Sergio Gomez Y Paloma & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Marianne Lefebvre & Sophie Thoyer & Raphaële Préget, 2015. "(How) can economic experiments inform EU agricultural policy?," JRC Research Reports JRC97340, Joint Research Centre.
    10. Pratt, Bryan & Wallander, Steven, "undated". "Cover Practice Definitions and Incentives in the Conservation Reserve Program," USDA Miscellaneous 323862, United States Department of Agriculture.
    11. Nicole Karwowski, 2022. "Estimating the Effect of Easements on Agricultural Production," NBER Chapters, in: American Agriculture, Water Resources, and Climate Change, pages 53-105, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Liesbeth Colen & Sergio Gomez y Paloma & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Marianne Lefebvre & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer, 2016. "Economic Experiments as a Tool for Agricultural Policy Evaluation: Insights from the European CAP," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(4), pages 667-694, December.
    13. Leah H. Palm-Forster & Scott M. Swinton & Frank Lupi & Robert S. Shupp, 2016. "Too Burdensome to Bid: Transaction Costs and Pay-for-Performance Conservation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(5), pages 1314-1333.
    14. 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.
    15. Baumber, Alex, 2017. "Enhancing ecosystem services through targeted bioenergy support policies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 98-110.
    16. Kim, Youngho & Lichtenberg, Erik & Newburn, David A., 2024. "Payments and penalties in ecosystem services programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    17. Pratt, Bryan & Wallander, Steven, 2022. "Cover Practice Definitions and Incentives in the Conservation Reserve Program," Economic Information Bulletin 327358, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    18. Marc N. Conte & Robert M. Griffin, 2017. "Quality Information and Procurement Auction Outcomes: Evidence from a Payment for Ecosystem Services Laboratory Experiment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 99(3), pages 571-591, April.
    19. Lim, Siew & Wachenheim, Cheryl, 2022. "Predicted enrollment in alternative attribute Conservation Reserve Program contracts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    20. Rosenberg, Andrew B. & Pratt, Bryan & Arnold, David & Williams, Ryan, 2024. "Land Use of Rejected, Enrolled, and Expiring Fields in the Conservation Reserve Program," Economic Information Bulletin 344828, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    21. Cramton, Peter & Hellerstein, Daniel & Higgins, Nathaniel & Iovanna, Richard & López-Vargas, Kristian & Wallander, Steven, 2021. "Improving the cost-effectiveness of the Conservation Reserve Program: A laboratory study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    22. Janusch, Nicholas & Palm-Forster, Leah H. & Messer, Kent D. & Ferraro, Paul J., "undated". "Behavioral Insights for Agri-Environmental Program and Policy Design," 2018 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 5-7, 2018, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 266299, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    23. Star, Megan & Rolfe, John & Barbi, Emily, 2019. "Do outcome or input risks limit adoption of environmental projects: Rehabilitating gullies in Great Barrier Reef catchments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 73-82.
    24. Hellerstein, Daniel M., 2017. "The US Conservation Reserve Program: The evolution of an enrollment mechanism," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 601-610.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    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:uersaw:209897. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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/ersgvus.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.