Environment is a public good whose preservation requires some type of intervention. Use of natural resources for economic activities should be regulated by the local communities; however, this can have in turn external effects on other communities. Environment then takes the double nature of local and global public good, requiring intervention of different levels of governments, whose interplay may raise further conflicts. The aim of this paper is twofold. First, we survey the literature on conflicts arising from the alternative uses of land and natural resources and discuss the effects and policy implications of the interplay between different governments. Second, we focus on the role of strategic interactions in the environmental governance and the implied policy trade-offs and present a formal policy game with potential conflicts between central and local authorities. The model aims to describe the circumstances according to which the lack of coordination between local and central authorities leads to under- or over- provision of natural resources and environment preservation.
{"title":"Natural Resources and Environment Preservation: Strategic Substitutability vs. Complementarity in \u0000Global and Local Public Good Provision","authors":"N. Acocella, G. Bartolomeo","doi":"10.1561/101.00000109","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000109","url":null,"abstract":"Environment is a public good whose preservation requires some type of intervention. Use of natural resources for economic activities should be regulated by the local communities; however, this can have in turn external effects on other communities. Environment then takes the double nature of local and global public good, requiring intervention of different levels of governments, whose interplay may raise further conflicts. The aim of this paper is twofold. First, we survey the literature on conflicts arising from the alternative uses of land and natural resources and discuss the effects and policy implications of the interplay between different governments. Second, we focus on the role of strategic interactions in the environmental governance and the implied policy trade-offs and present a formal policy game with potential conflicts between central and local authorities. The model aims to describe the circumstances according to which the lack of coordination between local and central authorities leads to under- or over- provision of natural resources and environment preservation.","PeriodicalId":45355,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2019-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1561/101.00000109","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47702622","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Antoine Dechezleprêtre, T. Kózluk, Tobias Kruse, Daniel Nachtigall, A. Serres
This article reviews the empirical literature combining economic and environmental performance data at the micro-level, i.e. firm or facility level. The literature has generally found a positive and statistically significant correlation between economic performance, as measured by profitability indicators or stock market returns, and environmental performance, as measured by emissions of pollutants or adoption of international environmental standards. The main reason for this finding seems to be that firms that reduce their material and energy costs experience both better economic performance and lower emissions. Only a small and recent literature analyses the joint causal impact of environmental regulations on environmental and economic performance. Interestingly, this literature shows that environmental regulations tend to improve environmental performance while not weakening economic performance. However, the evidence so far is limited to a handful of environmental regulations that are not extremely stringent, so the result cannot be easily generalized. More research is needed to assess the joint effects of environmental regulations on environmental and economic performance, to explore the heterogeneity of these effects across sectors, countries and types of policies, and to understand which policy designs allow improving environmental quality while not coming at a cost in terms of economic performance of regulated businesses.
{"title":"Do Environmental and Economic Performance Go Together? A Review of Micro-level Empirical Evidence \u0000 from the Past Decade or So","authors":"Antoine Dechezleprêtre, T. Kózluk, Tobias Kruse, Daniel Nachtigall, A. Serres","doi":"10.1561/101.00000106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000106","url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews the empirical literature combining economic and environmental performance data at the micro-level, i.e. firm or facility level. The literature has generally found a positive and statistically significant correlation between economic performance, as measured by profitability indicators or stock market returns, and environmental performance, as measured by emissions of pollutants or adoption of international environmental standards. The main reason for this finding seems to be that firms that reduce their material and energy costs experience both better economic performance and lower emissions. Only a small and recent literature analyses the joint causal impact of environmental regulations on environmental and economic performance. Interestingly, this literature shows that environmental regulations tend to improve environmental performance while not weakening economic performance. However, the evidence so far is limited to a handful of environmental regulations that are not extremely stringent, so the result cannot be easily generalized. More research is needed to assess the joint effects of environmental regulations on environmental and economic performance, to explore the heterogeneity of these effects across sectors, countries and types of policies, and to understand which policy designs allow improving environmental quality while not coming at a cost in terms of economic performance of regulated businesses.","PeriodicalId":45355,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2019-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1561/101.00000106","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42959930","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Forests in lower-income countries provide a global public good, carbon sequestration. REDD, “reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation†is a performance-based payment designed to align private incentives at the country level with the socially optimal level of forest loss. This review article focuses on the distributional implications of REDD, specifically on whom the burdens and benefits fall. First, REDD implementation has proven more difficult and costly than originally anticipated. The literature highlights many costs of REDD over and above the opportunity cost, including readiness, enforcement and monitoring, which initially were underestimated or ignored. Second, ensuring additionality, minimising leakage, and spatial targeting of carbon rich locations, are difficult and costly, and shown in the literature to sometimes be at odds with pro-poor efforts. Third, benefit sharing has emerged in the literature as a central element of REDD implementation. Rural households may use nearby forests yet have no rights, and REDD may bring no benefits whilst imposing costs on these communities. Where REDD is implemented at the community level, incentives may not be aligned at the level of the individual, reducing REDD’s impact and increasing conflict. Finally, funding sources are closely linked to the incidence of benefits and burdens. Our review suggests that, over a decade on from the Paris Agreement, REDD continues to be controversial, with equity-efficiency trade-offs often difficult to avoid. However, the literature provides considerable theoretical and empirical evidence as to how and where REDD can have a positive impact on both carbon sequestration and livelihoods.
{"title":"The Economics of REDD through an Incidence of Burdens and Benefits Lens","authors":"E. Robinson, S. Somerville, H. Albers","doi":"10.1561/101.00000108","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000108","url":null,"abstract":"Forests in lower-income countries provide a global public good, carbon sequestration. REDD, “reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation†is a performance-based payment designed to align private incentives at the country level with the socially optimal level of forest loss. This review article focuses on the distributional implications of REDD, specifically on whom the burdens and benefits fall. First, REDD implementation has proven more difficult and costly than originally anticipated. The literature highlights many costs of REDD over and above the opportunity cost, including readiness, enforcement and monitoring, which initially were underestimated or ignored. Second, ensuring additionality, minimising leakage, and spatial targeting of carbon rich locations, are difficult and costly, and shown in the literature to sometimes be at odds with pro-poor efforts. Third, benefit sharing has emerged in the literature as a central element of REDD implementation. Rural households may use nearby forests yet have no rights, and REDD may bring no benefits whilst imposing costs on these communities. Where REDD is implemented at the community level, incentives may not be aligned at the level of the individual, reducing REDD’s impact and increasing conflict. Finally, funding sources are closely linked to the incidence of benefits and burdens. Our review suggests that, over a decade on from the Paris Agreement, REDD continues to be controversial, with equity-efficiency trade-offs often difficult to avoid. However, the literature provides considerable theoretical and empirical evidence as to how and where REDD can have a positive impact on both carbon sequestration and livelihoods.","PeriodicalId":45355,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2019-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1561/101.00000108","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48727910","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In many countries, various eco-labels have emerged for informing consumers about the environmental impact of the offered products. Using recent advances in the empirical and theoretical literature, this review questions the efficiency of eco-labeling. We combine a literature review with discussions of empirical examples. We underline the limitations of eco-labels for signaling credible information to consumers. In particular, both the complexity and the proliferation of eco-labels are likely to hamper their efficiency in guiding consumers. From a regulatory perspective, several studies show that eco-labels are useful, but they cannot be considered a panacea for improving environmental quality. Indeed, it is often socially optimal to combine eco-labels with other regulatory tools such as standards banning polluting products and tax/subsidy mechanisms depending on the environmental quality. The conclusion suggests research priorities for tackling unanswered questions.
{"title":"A Review of Eco-labels and their Economic Impact","authors":"Maïmouna Yokessa, S. Marette","doi":"10.1561/101.00000107","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000107","url":null,"abstract":"In many countries, various eco-labels have emerged for informing consumers about the environmental impact of the offered products. Using recent advances in the empirical and theoretical literature, this review questions the efficiency of eco-labeling. We combine a literature review with discussions of empirical examples. We underline the limitations of eco-labels for signaling credible information to consumers. In particular, both the complexity and the proliferation of eco-labels are likely to hamper their efficiency in guiding consumers. From a regulatory perspective, several studies show that eco-labels are useful, but they cannot be considered a panacea for improving environmental quality. Indeed, it is often socially optimal to combine eco-labels with other regulatory tools such as standards banning polluting products and tax/subsidy mechanisms depending on the environmental quality. The conclusion suggests research priorities for tackling unanswered questions.","PeriodicalId":45355,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2019-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1561/101.00000107","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48933221","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
What are the long-term economic consequences of disasters? This question is debated among scholars, but any answer for it is very important for policymakers as well. Several factors should be taken into consideration when assessing likely post-disaster long-term outcomes, including the type and severity of the event, the underlying composition of the economy, and the total area impacted. Additionally, the way that researchers choose to define long-term impact, and what is being measured, also matters. Regardless, there is no clear consensus concerning the long-term economic consequences of these events. A common way to identify this impact is to compare the economy post-disaster to the level it was at prior to the event. This approach can be useful when estimating the impact in the short term; however, when analyzing the long-term impact this approach is less convincing. Economies are constantly changing, and over long periods of time these changes will accumulate. Therefore, one of the biggest challenges these inquiries face is the need to estimate what the level of economic activity would have been had the disaster not occurred. The methodologies in which researchers go about doing this can have a significant impact on their conclusions, as we show with several examples. We also describe studies that use data collected at regional or city/township level; these have found a much more nuanced set of results.
{"title":"The Long-Term Consequences of Disasters: What Do We Know, and What We Still Don't","authors":"Ilan Noy, W. Dupont","doi":"10.1561/101.00000104","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000104","url":null,"abstract":"What are the long-term economic consequences of disasters? This question is debated among scholars, but any answer for it is very important for policymakers as well. Several factors should be taken into consideration when assessing likely post-disaster long-term outcomes, including the type and severity of the event, the underlying composition of the economy, and the total area impacted. Additionally, the way that researchers choose to define long-term impact, and what is being measured, also matters. Regardless, there is no clear consensus concerning the long-term economic consequences of these events. A common way to identify this impact is to compare the economy post-disaster to the level it was at prior to the event. This approach can be useful when estimating the impact in the short term; however, when analyzing the long-term impact this approach is less convincing. Economies are constantly changing, and over long periods of time these changes will accumulate. Therefore, one of the biggest challenges these inquiries face is the need to estimate what the level of economic activity would have been had the disaster not occurred. The methodologies in which researchers go about doing this can have a significant impact on their conclusions, as we show with several examples. We also describe studies that use data collected at regional or city/township level; these have found a much more nuanced set of results.","PeriodicalId":45355,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2018-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1561/101.00000104","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49566632","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This review explores the mechanisms through which environmental responsibility influences firm performance. We identify several mechanisms related to stakeholders — customers, employees, investors, government, non-governmental organization, and executives. We try to identify trends both in the importance of different mechanisms in our knowledge about them. We find that recent literature put increasing emphasis on the role of employees as driver of corporate environmental responsibility. The literature also argues that socially responsible investments are becoming more and more mainstream. Finally, we argue that interaction between stakeholders is an important driver of environmental responsibility, with the interaction of NGOs and consumers as an important example.
{"title":"Why Are Firms Environmentally Responsible? A Review and Assessment of the Main Mechanisms","authors":"K. A. Brekke, Sanja Pekovic","doi":"10.1561/101.00000105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000105","url":null,"abstract":"This review explores the mechanisms through which environmental responsibility influences firm performance. We identify several mechanisms related to stakeholders — customers, employees, investors, government, non-governmental organization, and executives. We try to identify trends both in the importance of different mechanisms in our knowledge about them. We find that recent literature put increasing emphasis on the role of employees as driver of corporate environmental responsibility. The literature also argues that socially responsible investments are becoming more and more mainstream. Finally, we argue that interaction between stakeholders is an important driver of environmental responsibility, with the interaction of NGOs and consumers as an important example.","PeriodicalId":45355,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2018-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1561/101.00000105","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67075131","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article summarizes the current state and future prospects for benefit transfer of environmental and resource values. Benefit transfer is the use of pre-existing empirical estimates from primary studies at one or more sites or contexts where research has been conducted to predict welfare estimates such as willingness to pay at other, typically unstudied sites or contexts. We orient the discussion around theory, methods and practice, focusing on progress, challenges and frontiers in the literature since the review of Johnston and Rosenberger (2010, Journal of Economic Surveys). The article begins with a brief history of benefit transfer and a summary of areas in which there is methodological consensus. It then presents questions regarding the approaches most likely to promote valid and reliable transfers, and recent research to address these questions. We conclude with an examination of the gap between research and practice, and a discussion of future prospects and research needs.
{"title":"Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values: Progress, Prospects and Challenges","authors":"R. Johnston, J. Rolfe, Ewa Zawojska","doi":"10.1561/101.00000102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000102","url":null,"abstract":"This article summarizes the current state and future prospects for benefit transfer of environmental and resource values. Benefit transfer is the use of pre-existing empirical estimates from primary studies at one or more sites or contexts where research has been conducted to predict welfare estimates such as willingness to pay at other, typically unstudied sites or contexts. We orient the discussion around theory, methods and practice, focusing on progress, challenges and frontiers in the literature since the review of Johnston and Rosenberger (2010, Journal of Economic Surveys). The article begins with a brief history of benefit transfer and a summary of areas in which there is methodological consensus. It then presents questions regarding the approaches most likely to promote valid and reliable transfers, and recent research to address these questions. We conclude with an examination of the gap between research and practice, and a discussion of future prospects and research needs.","PeriodicalId":45355,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2018-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1561/101.00000102","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48297559","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper studies the role of equity preferences and distribution in climate policies by presenting mechanisms and results from dynamic North-South models. If policy makers express preferences regarding the distributive outcome of policies, they may adopt climate policies that influence the distribution in their preferred direction. A better distribution of outcomes may result even in the absence of such preferences if there exist strategic reasons for transfers from the rich to the poor countries. We also present results concerning when such transfers do and do not work according to policy makers’ intentions. A transfer that proceeds from the poor to the rich countries is climate migration. This may have distributional consequences and possibly increase the incentives of the rich countries to implement climate policies that mitigate negative distributional effects, even if their main concern is with their own outcomes.
{"title":"Climate Policies, Distributional Effects and Transfers Between Rich and Poor Countries","authors":"S. Kverndokk","doi":"10.1561/101.00000100","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000100","url":null,"abstract":"This paper studies the role of equity preferences and distribution in climate policies by presenting mechanisms and results from dynamic North-South models. If policy makers express preferences regarding the distributive outcome of policies, they may adopt climate policies that influence the distribution in their preferred direction. A better distribution of outcomes may result even in the absence of such preferences if there exist strategic reasons for transfers from the rich to the poor countries. We also present results concerning when such transfers do and do not work according to policy makers’ intentions. A transfer that proceeds from the poor to the rich countries is climate migration. This may have distributional consequences and possibly increase the incentives of the rich countries to implement climate policies that mitigate negative distributional effects, even if their main concern is with their own outcomes.","PeriodicalId":45355,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2018-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1561/101.00000100","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46671168","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There is growing demand for more pluralistic valuation approaches, for which Deliberative Monetary Valuation (DMV) is suitable. Guidance is needed for valid and reliable DMV application, as exists for conventional willingness to pay studies using stated preference methods. The purpose of this paper is to develop a set of minimal requirements for study design and reporting aimed at DMV practitioners, based on the existing DMV literature as well as related social science literatures. The core contribution of our paper is the practical recommendations for DMV study design focusing on the deliberation process and elicitation format, analysis of the deliberation and willingness to pay results, and validity. We summarise reporting requirements for reliability, before offering conclusions and suggestions for promising future research directions.
{"title":"Guidance for Deliberative Monetary Valuation Studies","authors":"M. Schaafsma, B. Bartkowski, N. Lienhoop","doi":"10.1561/101.00000103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000103","url":null,"abstract":"There is growing demand for more pluralistic valuation approaches, for which Deliberative Monetary Valuation (DMV) is suitable. Guidance is needed for valid and reliable DMV application, as exists for conventional willingness to pay studies using stated preference methods. The purpose of this paper is to develop a set of minimal requirements for study design and reporting aimed at DMV practitioners, based on the existing DMV literature as well as related social science literatures. The core contribution of our paper is the practical recommendations for DMV study design focusing on the deliberation process and elicitation format, analysis of the deliberation and willingness to pay results, and validity. We summarise reporting requirements for reliability, before offering conclusions and suggestions for promising future research directions.","PeriodicalId":45355,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2018-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1561/101.00000103","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48333346","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
J. Rolfe, S. Schilizzi, P. Boxall, U. Latacz-Lohmann, S. Iftekhar, M. Star, P. O'Connor
Conservation tenders are being used as a policy mechanism to deliver environmental benefits through changes in land, water and biodiversity management. While these mechanisms can potentially be more efficient than other agri-environmental and payment for ecosystem service schemes, a key limitation in practice is that participation rates from eligible landholders are often low, limiting both efficiency and effectiveness. In this paper we document and review potential causes of low participation in two categories: those that treat participation as an adoption issue focused on searching for the landholder, farm or practice characteristics that limit participation; and those that treat it as an auction design issue, looking for the different auction, contract or transaction cost elements that limit landholder interest in participation. We then model how landholders make choices to engage and bid in a tender, making three important contributions to the literature on this topic. First, we document the low participation rates in conservation tenders, mostly across developed countries, an issue that has received little attention to date. Second, we explain that a decision to participate in a conservation tender involves three simultaneous decisions about whether to change a management practice, whether to be involved in a public or private program with contractual obligations, and how to set a price or bid. Third, we explain that there are a number of factors that affect each stage of the decision process with some, such as landholder attitudes and risk considerations, relevant to all three. Our findings suggest that decisions to participate in a conservation tender are more complex than simple adoption decisions, involving optimisation challenges over a number of potentially offsetting factors.
{"title":"Identifying the Causes of Low Participation Rates in Conservation Tenders","authors":"J. Rolfe, S. Schilizzi, P. Boxall, U. Latacz-Lohmann, S. Iftekhar, M. Star, P. O'Connor","doi":"10.1561/101.00000098","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000098","url":null,"abstract":"Conservation tenders are being used as a policy mechanism to deliver environmental benefits through changes in land, water and biodiversity management. While these mechanisms can potentially be more efficient than other agri-environmental and payment for ecosystem service schemes, a key limitation in practice is that participation rates from eligible landholders are often low, limiting both efficiency and effectiveness. In this paper we document and review potential causes of low participation in two categories: those that treat participation as an adoption issue focused on searching for the landholder, farm or practice characteristics that limit participation; and those that treat it as an auction design issue, looking for the different auction, contract or transaction cost elements that limit landholder interest in participation. We then model how landholders make choices to engage and bid in a tender, making three important contributions to the literature on this topic. First, we document the low participation rates in conservation tenders, mostly across developed countries, an issue that has received little attention to date. Second, we explain that a decision to participate in a conservation tender involves three simultaneous decisions about whether to change a management practice, whether to be involved in a public or private program with contractual obligations, and how to set a price or bid. Third, we explain that there are a number of factors that affect each stage of the decision process with some, such as landholder attitudes and risk considerations, relevant to all three. Our findings suggest that decisions to participate in a conservation tender are more complex than simple adoption decisions, involving optimisation challenges over a number of potentially offsetting factors.","PeriodicalId":45355,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2018-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1561/101.00000098","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46091028","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：