IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/foreco/v19y2013i2p128-148.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Landowners’ conservation motives and the size of information rents in environmental bidding systems

Author

Listed:
  • Juutinen, Artti
  • Mäntymaa, Erkki
  • Ollikainen, Markku

Abstract

We examine landowners’ conservation motives, conservation costs and information rents in environmental bidding systems designed for forestry with the help of Faustmann and Hartman models and data from Finnish conservation program. We show that the Faustmann landowners receive information rents, on average 55% of the rental payments. For the Hartman landowners the high conservation costs of old stands result in low information rents; they are only 13% of the rental payments. This estimate omits amenity benefits the landowners derive from their forests; accounting for these benefits would increase information rents dramatically. Despite the high information rents, landowners’ conservation motives decrease the rental payment required for participation in the conservation program. Hence, landowners’ conservation motives give governments a great opportunity to allocate conservation contracts in a more cost effective way, thereby extracting larger benefits for scarce conservation funds.

Suggested Citation

  • Juutinen, Artti & Mäntymaa, Erkki & Ollikainen, Markku, 2013. "Landowners’ conservation motives and the size of information rents in environmental bidding systems," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 128-148.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:foreco:v:19:y:2013:i:2:p:128-148
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2012.12.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1104689912000657
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jfe.2012.12.001?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. 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.
    2. Reeson, Andrew F. & Rodriguez, Luis C. & Whitten, Stuart M. & Williams, Kristen & Nolles, Karel & Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2011. "Adapting auctions for the provision of ecosystem services at the landscape scale," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1621-1627, July.
    3. Gregory S. Amacher & Markku Ollikainen & Erkki A. Koskela, 2009. "Economics of Forest Resources," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262012480.
    4. Juutinen, Artti, 2008. "Old-growth boreal forests: Worth protecting for biodiversity?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 242-267, November.
    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. JunJie Wu & Bruce A. Babcock, 1996. "Relative Efficiency of Voluntary Versus Mandatory Environmental Regulations, The," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 96-wp172, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    7. 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.
    8. Segerson, Kathleen & Miceli, Thomas J., 1998. "Voluntary Environmental Agreements: Good or Bad News for Environmental Protection?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 109-130, September.
    9. Nagubadi, Venkatarao & McNamara, Kevin T. & Hoover, William L. & Mills, Walter L., 1996. "Program Participation Behavior of Nonindustrial Forest Landowners: A Probit Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 323-336, December.
    10. Ferraro, Paul J., 2008. "Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 810-821, May.
    11. Stranlund John K., 1995. "Public Mechanisms to Support Compliance to an Environmental Norm," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 205-222, March.
    12. Wu, JunJie & Babcock, Bruce A., 1999. "The Relative Efficiency of Voluntary vs Mandatory Environmental Regulations," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 158-175, September.
    13. Smith, Rodney B. W. & Shogren, Jason F., 2002. "Voluntary Incentive Design for Endangered Species Protection," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 169-187, March.
    14. Langpap, Christian & Wu, JunJie, 2004. "Voluntary conservation of endangered species: when does no regulatory assurance mean no conservation?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 435-457, May.
    15. Vukina, Tomislav & Zheng, Xiaoyong & Marra, Michele & Levy, Armando, 2008. "Do farmers value the environment? Evidence from a conservation reserve program auction," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 1323-1332, November.
    16. Espinola-Arredondo, Ana, 2008. "Green auctions: A biodiversity study of mechanism design with externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 175-183, September.
    17. Bell, Caroline D. & Roberts, Roland K. & English, Burton C. & Park, William M., 1994. "A Logit Analysis Of Participation In Tennessee'S Forest Stewardship Program," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 1-10, December.
    18. M. Iftekhar & A. Hailu & R. Lindner, 2012. "The Effect of Bidder Heterogeneity on Combinatorial Conservation Auction Designs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(1), pages 137-157, September.
    19. Juutinen, Artti & Mönkkönen, Mikko & Ylisirniö, Anna-Liisa, 2009. "Does a voluntary conservation program result in a representative protected area network?: The case of Finnish privately owned forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2974-2984, October.
    20. Ruben N. Lubowski & Michael J. Roberts, 2005. "How Cost-Effective Are Land Retirement Auctions? Estimating the Difference between Payments and Willingness to Accept in the Conservation Reserve Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(5), pages 1239-1247.
    21. Jeffery D. Connor & John R. Ward & Brett Bryan, 2008. "Exploring the cost effectiveness of land conservation auctions and payment policies ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 303-319, September.
    22. Juutinen, Artti & Mantymaa, Erkki & Monkkonen, Mikko & Svento, Rauli, 2008. "Voluntary agreements in protecting privately owned forests in Finland -- To buy or to lease," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 230-239, February.
    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. Tyrväinen, Liisa & Mäntymaa, Erkki & Juutinen, Artti & Kurttila, Mikko & Ovaskainen, Ville, 2021. "Private landowners’ preferences for trading forest landscape and recreational values: A choice experiment application in Kuusamo, Finland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    2. Rabotyagov, Sergey S. & Lin, Sonja, 2013. "Small forest landowner preferences for working forest conservation contract attributes: A case of Washington State, USA," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 307-330.
    3. Miljand, Matilda & Bjärstig, Therese & Eckerberg, Katarina & Primmer, Eeva & Sandström, Camilla, 2021. "Voluntary agreements to protect private forests – A realist review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    4. Juutinen, Artti & Ollikainen, Markku & Mönkkönen, Mikko & Reunanen, Pasi & Tikkanen, Olli-Pekka & Kouki, Jari, 2014. "Optimal contract length for biodiversity conservation under conservation budget constraint," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 14-24.
    5. Iho, Antti & Lankoski, Jussi & Ollikainen, Markku & Puustinen, Markku & Lehtimäki, Jonne, 2014. "Agri-environmental auctions for phosphorus load reduction: experiences from a Finnish pilot," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 58(2), April.
    6. Juutinen, Artti & Tolvanen, Anne & Koskela, Terhi, 2020. "Forest owners' future intentions for forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    7. Mäntymaa, Erkki & Juutinen, Artti & Tyrväinen, Liisa & Karhu, Jouni & Kurttila, Mikko, 2018. "Participation and compensation claims in voluntary forest landscape conservation: The case of the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area, Finland," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 14-24.
    8. Vedel, Suzanne Elizabeth & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2015. "Forest owners' willingness to accept contracts for ecosystem service provision is sensitive to additionality," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 15-24.
    9. Sironen, Susanna & Primmer, Eeva & Leskinen, Pekka & Similä, Jukka & Punttila, Pekka, 2020. "Context sensitive policy instruments: A multi-criteria decision analysis for safeguarding forest habitats in Southwestern Finland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    10. Matthies, Brent D. & Kalliokoski, Tuomo & Ekholm, Tommi & Hoen, Hans Fredrik & Valsta, Lauri T., 2015. "Risk, reward, and payments for ecosystem services: A portfolio approach to ecosystem services and forestland investment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 1-12.
    11. Juutinen, Artti & Ahtikoski, Anssi & Lehtonen, Mika & Mäkipää, Raisa & Ollikainen, Markku, 2018. "The impact of a short-term carbon payment scheme on forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 115-127.
    12. Amacher, Gregory S. & Ollikainen, Markku & Uusivuori, Jussi, 2014. "Forests and ecosystem services: Outlines for new policy options," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 1-3.

    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. Lewis, David J. & Plantinga, Andrew J. & Nelson, Erik & Polasky, Stephen, 2011. "The efficiency of voluntary incentive policies for preventing biodiversity loss," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 192-211, January.
    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. Bamière, Laure & David, Maia & Vermont, Bruno, 2013. "Agri-environmental policies for biodiversity when the spatial pattern of the reserve matters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 97-104.
    4. Juutinen, Artti & Mönkkönen, Mikko & Ylisirniö, Anna-Liisa, 2009. "Does a voluntary conservation program result in a representative protected area network?: The case of Finnish privately owned forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2974-2984, October.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Krawczyk, Michał & Bartczak, Anna & Hanley, Nick & Stenger, Anne, 2016. "Buying spatially-coordinated ecosystem services: An experiment on the role of auction format and communication," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 36-48.
    8. Holmes, William B., 2017. "Environmental services auctions under regulatory threat," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 584-591.
    9. 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.
    10. Juutinen, Artti & Mantymaa, Erkki & Monkkonen, Mikko & Svento, Rauli, 2008. "Voluntary agreements in protecting privately owned forests in Finland -- To buy or to lease," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 230-239, February.
    11. 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.
    12. Latacz-Lohmann, U. & Schilizzi, S. & Breustedt, G., 2012. "Auctioning outcome-based conservation contracts," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 47, March.
    13. Hellerstein, Daniel & Higgins, Nathaniel, 2010. "The Effective Use of Limited Information: Do Bid Maximums Reduce Procurement Cost in Asymmetric Auctions?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 288-304, April.
    14. Vogt, Nora & Bizer, Kilian, 2013. "Lock-in effects in competitive bidding schemes for payments for ecosystem services: Revisiting the fundamental transformation," Center for European, Governance and Economic Development Research Discussion Papers 158, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    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. 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. Zhaoyang Liu & Jintao Xu & Xiaojun Yang & Qin Tu & Nick Hanley & Andreas Kontoleon, 2019. "Performance of Agglomeration Bonuses in Conservation Auctions: Lessons from a Framed Field Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 843-869, July.
    20. Sims, Katharine R.E. & Alix-Garcia, Jennifer M., 2017. "Parks versus PES: Evaluating direct and incentive-based land conservation in Mexico," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 8-28.

    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:foreco:v:19:y:2013:i:2:p:128-148. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/701775/description#description .

    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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/701775/description#description .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.