IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01531762.html

Buying spatially-coordinated ecosystem services: An experiment on the role of auction format and communication

Author

Listed:
  • Michał Krawczyk

    (Warsaw Ecological Economics Center, Faculty of Economic Sciences - UW - Uniwersytet Warszawski [Polska] = University of Warsaw [Poland] = Université de Varsovie [Pologne])

  • Anna Bartczak

    (Warsaw Ecological Economics Center, Faculty of Economic Sciences - UW - Uniwersytet Warszawski [Polska] = University of Warsaw [Poland] = Université de Varsovie [Pologne])

  • Nick Hanley

    (Department of Geography and Sustainable Development - University of St Andrews [Scotland])

  • Anne Stenger-Letheux

    (LEF - Laboratoire d'Economie Forestière - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - AgroParisTech, BETA - Bureau d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - UNISTRA - Université de Strasbourg - UL - Université de Lorraine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

Procurement auctions are one of several policy tools available to incentivise the provision of ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation. Successful biodiversity conservation often requires a landscape-scale approach and the spatial coordination of participation, for example in the creation of wildlife corridors. In this paper, we use a laboratory experiment to explore two features of procurement auctions in a forest landscape: the pricing mechanism (uniform vs. discriminatory) and availability of communication (chat) between potential sellers. We modify the experimental design developed by Reeson et al. (2011) by introducing uncertainty (and hence heterogeneity) in the production value of forest sites as well as an automated, endogenous stopping rule. We find that discriminatory pricing yields to greater environmental benefits per government dollar spent, chiefly because it is easier to construct long corridors. Chat also facilitates such coordination but also seems to encourage collusion in sustaining high prices for the most environmentally attractive plots. These two effects offset each other, making chat neutral from the viewpoint of maximizing environmental effect per dollar spent

Suggested Citation

  • Michał Krawczyk & Anna Bartczak & Nick Hanley & Anne Stenger-Letheux, 2016. "Buying spatially-coordinated ecosystem services: An experiment on the role of auction format and communication," Post-Print hal-01531762, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01531762
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.01.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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. Rommel, Jens & Anggraini, Eva, 2018. "Spatially explicit framed field experiments on ecosystem services governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 201-205.
    2. Drechsler, Martin, 2025. "Learning coalition formation under an agglomeration bonus: Impacts on coalition structure and scheme performance," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    3. Attallah, May & Abildtrup, Jens & Stenger, Anne, 2022. "Non-monetary incentives for sustainable biomass harvest: An experimental approach," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    4. Drechsler, Martin & Sturm, Astrid, 2025. "Model-based analysis of the agglomeration bonus for the conservation of twelve meadow bird species in an agricultural landscape," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    5. Nguyen, Chi & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Hanley, Nick & Iftekhar, Sayed, 2025. "Conservation auctions for landscape-scale environmental management: Does spatial configuration matter for economic and ecological outcomes?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    6. Panchalingam, Thadchaigeni & Jones Ritten, Chian & Shogren, Jason F. & Ehmke, Mariah D. & Bastian, Christopher T. & Parkhurst, Gregory M., 2019. "Adding realism to the Agglomeration Bonus: How endogenous land returns affect habitat fragmentation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    7. François Bareille & Matteo Zavalloni & Davide Viaggi, 2023. "Agglomeration bonus and endogenous group formation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(1), pages 76-98, January.
    8. Zhaoyang Liu & Simanti Banerjee & Timothy N. Cason & Nick Hanley & Qi Liu & Jintao Xu & Andreas Kontoleon, 2024. "Spatially coordinated conservation auctions: A framed field experiment focusing on farmland wildlife conservation in China," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(4), pages 1354-1379, August.
    9. Smith, Gregory & Day, Brett, 2018. "Addressing the Collective Action Problem in Multiple-purchaser PES: An Experimental Investigation of Negotiated Payment Contributions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 36-58.
    10. Md Sayed Iftekhar & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann, 2017. "How well do conservation auctions perform in achieving landscape-level outcomes? A comparison of auction formats and bid selection criteria," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 61(4), pages 557-575, October.
    11. Higashida, Keisaku & Tanaka, Kenta & Managi, Shunsuke, 2019. "The efficiency of conservation banking schemes with inter-regionally tradable credits and the role of mediators," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 175-186.
    12. Justin Dijk & Erik Ansink & Daan van Soest, 2017. "Buyouts and Agglomeration Bonuses in Wildlife Corridor Auctions," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-036/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Chi Nguyen & Uwe Latacz‐Lohmann & Nick Hanley, 2024. "Landscape‐level determinants of the performance of an agglomeration bonus in conservation auctions," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(2), pages 592-616, June.
    16. Sheremet, Oleg & Ruokamo, Enni & Juutinen, Artti & Svento, Rauli & Hanley, Nick, 2018. "Incentivising Participation and Spatial Coordination in Payment for Ecosystem Service Schemes: Forest Disease Control Programs in Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 260-272.
    17. 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).
    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. Jens Abildtrup & Géraldine Bocquého & Kene Boun My & Anne Stenger & Tuyen Tiet, 2025. "The role of mandatory and voluntary joint bidding in promoting efficiency in conservation auction," Working Papers of BETA 2025-40, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • 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

    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:hal:journl:hal-01531762. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.