IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v98y2016i5p1314-1333..html

Too Burdensome to Bid: Transaction Costs and Pay-for-Performance Conservation

Author

Listed:
  • Leah H. Palm-Forster
  • Scott M. Swinton
  • Frank Lupi
  • Robert S. Shupp

Abstract

In a world free of transaction costs, reverse auctions have the potential to cost-effectively allocate payment for environmental service contracts by targeting projects that provide the most benefit per dollar spent. However, auctions only succeed if enough farmers choose to bid so that the auctioneer can evaluate numerous projects for targeted funding. A 2014 conservation auction to allocate payments for practices that reduce phosphorus runoff in Northwest Ohio experienced very thin bidding. According to a follow-up survey, auction participation was deterred by the perceived complexity of the bidding process and the need to negotiate with renters. Due to low participation, the actual conservation auction made payments for phosphorus reduction that were surprisingly costly at the margin. Applying a farmer behavioral model to the Western Lake Erie Basin, we simulate participation choice and cost-effectiveness of environmental outcomes in reverse auctions and uniform payment conservation programs. Results reveal that when perceived transaction costs of bid preparation are high, reverse auctions can be less cost-effective than spatially targeted, uniform payment programs that attract higher participation.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:98:y:2016:i:5:p:1314-1333.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ajae/aaw071
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    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. 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.
    2. Ito, Nobuyuki, 2023. "Can market segmentation improve the performance of water quality trading auction? A laboratory experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    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. Joshua M. Duke & Robert J. Johnston & Amy L. Shober & Zhongyuan Liu, 2023. "Improving targeting of farmers for enrollment in agri‐environmental programs," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 1072-1096, June.
    5. Palm-Forster, Leah H. & Taylor, Mykel & Banerjee, Simanti & Xie, Lusi, 2023. "Factors influencing enrollment of leased cropland in the Conservation Stewardship Program in Kansas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    6. 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).
    7. Cloé Garnache & Scott M. Swinton & Joseph A. Herriges & Frank Lupi & R. Jan Stevenson, 2016. "Solving the Phosphorus Pollution Puzzle: Synthesis and Directions for Future Research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(5), pages 1334-1359.
    8. Scott M. Swinton, 2022. "Precision conservation: Linking set‐aside and working lands policy," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(3), pages 1158-1167, September.
    9. Fan, Wenbo & Xiao, Feng & Nie, Yu (Macro), 2022. "Managing bottleneck congestion with tradable credits under asymmetric transaction cost," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    10. Bruno Wichmann, 2024. "Rent seeking and precautionary bidding in conservation auctions," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 72(3), pages 235-249, September.
    11. Gregory Howard & Wendong Zhang & Adriana Valcu‐Lisman & Philip W. Gassman, 2024. "Evaluating the tradeoff between cost effectiveness and participation in agricultural conservation programs," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(2), pages 712-738, March.
    12. Howard, Gregory E. & Zhang, Wendong & Valcu-Lisman, Adriana M., 2021. "Evaluating the Efficiency-Participation Tradeoff in Agricultural Conservation Programs: The Effect of Reverse Auctions, Spatial Targeting, and Higher Offered Payments," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313926, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Robert J. Johnston & Tom Ndebele & David A. Newburn, 2023. "Modeling transaction costs in household adoption of landscape conservation practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(1), pages 341-367, January.
    14. Bingham, Logan & Boxall, Peter & Da Re, Riccardo & Whitten, Stuart & Knoke, Thomas & Borges, José G., 2024. "Advancing ecosystem services auctions: Insights from an international Delphi panel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    15. Graversgaard, Morten & Jacobsen, Brian H. & Hoffmann, Carl Christian & Dalgaard, Tommy & Odgaard, Mette Vestergaard & Kjaergaard, Charlotte & Powell, Neil & Strand, John A. & Feuerbach, Peter & Tonder, 2021. "Policies for wetlands implementation in Denmark and Sweden – historical lessons and emerging issues," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    16. Ndebele, Tom & Johnston, Robert J. & Newburn, David, 2020. "Transaction Costs and Household Adoption of Stormwater Best Management Practices," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304338, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Kim, Youngho & Newburn, David & Lichtenberg, Erik & Wietelman, Derek & Wang, Haoluan, 2025. "Emissions Trading Programs for Afforestation: Interactions with Federal Agricultural Conservation Programs," 2025 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2025, Denver, CO 360762, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. 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.
    19. Holzer, Jorge & DePiper, Geret & Lipton, Douglas, 2017. "Buybacks with costly participation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 130-145.
    20. Tongzhe Li & Leah H. Palm-Forster & Siddika Bhuiyanmishu, 2025. "Transaction Costs, Participation, and the Cost-Effectiveness of Reverse Auctions: Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 88(2), pages 397-424, February.
    21. Simanti Banerjee & Timothy N. Cason & Frans P. de Vries & Nick Hanley, 2021. "Spatial Coordination and Joint Bidding in Conservation Auctions," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 8(5), pages 1013-1049.
    22. Duke, Joshua M. & Liu, Hongxing & Monteith, Tyler & McGrath, Joshua & Fiorellino, Nicole M., 2020. "A method for predicting participation in a performance-based water quality trading program," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).

    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:oup:ajagec:v:98:y:2016:i:5:p:1314-1333.. 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: Oxford University Press (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.