Logan Bingham , Peter Boxall , Riccardo Da Re , Stuart Whitten , Thomas Knoke , José G. Borges
{"title":"推进生态系统服务拍卖:国际德尔菲小组的见解","authors":"Logan Bingham , Peter Boxall , Riccardo Da Re , Stuart Whitten , Thomas Knoke , José G. Borges","doi":"10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101647","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Auction theory has made major contributions to overcoming allocation problems involving asymmetric information and common-pool resources, leading to multiple Nobel Prizes and serving as a foundation for multi-billion-dollar markets. Despite evidence that related mechanisms could enhance the performance of payments for ecosystem services (PES), adoption has been sporadic and inconsistent. One possibility is that the relevant peer reviewed literature has low visibility or consensus design elements are not sufficiently accessible to interested experts. To overcome this barrier, we adopt a straightforward approach: we asked the PES auction subfield to describe itself. In collaboration with an expert panel (<em>n</em> = 32) whose affiliations span more than two dozen universities and research bodies across three continents—including top-ranked economists, ecosystem services theorists, and practitioners with experience designing and implementing PES programs with and without auctions—we synthesize a birds-eye view of ecosystem services auctions for an interdisciplinary audience. Through an iterative, mixed-method Delphi consultation, we identify broad consensus about fundamental elements of theory and practice, including what functions auctions tend to perform well, common challenges, and key factors influencing their performance. By selecting topics that panelists appeared to disagree about for further discussion, we also highlight open questions and potential research frontiers. We conclude with a reflection on using the Delphi method to foster exchange between time-constrained experts.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51312,"journal":{"name":"Ecosystem Services","volume":"69 ","pages":"Article 101647"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000548/pdfft?md5=7b580615f16f2f949ba580c1d3c9b6f8&pid=1-s2.0-S2212041624000548-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Advancing ecosystem services auctions: Insights from an international Delphi panel\",\"authors\":\"Logan Bingham , Peter Boxall , Riccardo Da Re , Stuart Whitten , Thomas Knoke , José G. Borges\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101647\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Auction theory has made major contributions to overcoming allocation problems involving asymmetric information and common-pool resources, leading to multiple Nobel Prizes and serving as a foundation for multi-billion-dollar markets. Despite evidence that related mechanisms could enhance the performance of payments for ecosystem services (PES), adoption has been sporadic and inconsistent. One possibility is that the relevant peer reviewed literature has low visibility or consensus design elements are not sufficiently accessible to interested experts. To overcome this barrier, we adopt a straightforward approach: we asked the PES auction subfield to describe itself. In collaboration with an expert panel (<em>n</em> = 32) whose affiliations span more than two dozen universities and research bodies across three continents—including top-ranked economists, ecosystem services theorists, and practitioners with experience designing and implementing PES programs with and without auctions—we synthesize a birds-eye view of ecosystem services auctions for an interdisciplinary audience. Through an iterative, mixed-method Delphi consultation, we identify broad consensus about fundamental elements of theory and practice, including what functions auctions tend to perform well, common challenges, and key factors influencing their performance. By selecting topics that panelists appeared to disagree about for further discussion, we also highlight open questions and potential research frontiers. We conclude with a reflection on using the Delphi method to foster exchange between time-constrained experts.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51312,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecosystem Services\",\"volume\":\"69 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101647\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000548/pdfft?md5=7b580615f16f2f949ba580c1d3c9b6f8&pid=1-s2.0-S2212041624000548-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecosystem Services\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000548\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecosystem Services","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000548","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Advancing ecosystem services auctions: Insights from an international Delphi panel
Auction theory has made major contributions to overcoming allocation problems involving asymmetric information and common-pool resources, leading to multiple Nobel Prizes and serving as a foundation for multi-billion-dollar markets. Despite evidence that related mechanisms could enhance the performance of payments for ecosystem services (PES), adoption has been sporadic and inconsistent. One possibility is that the relevant peer reviewed literature has low visibility or consensus design elements are not sufficiently accessible to interested experts. To overcome this barrier, we adopt a straightforward approach: we asked the PES auction subfield to describe itself. In collaboration with an expert panel (n = 32) whose affiliations span more than two dozen universities and research bodies across three continents—including top-ranked economists, ecosystem services theorists, and practitioners with experience designing and implementing PES programs with and without auctions—we synthesize a birds-eye view of ecosystem services auctions for an interdisciplinary audience. Through an iterative, mixed-method Delphi consultation, we identify broad consensus about fundamental elements of theory and practice, including what functions auctions tend to perform well, common challenges, and key factors influencing their performance. By selecting topics that panelists appeared to disagree about for further discussion, we also highlight open questions and potential research frontiers. We conclude with a reflection on using the Delphi method to foster exchange between time-constrained experts.
期刊介绍:
Ecosystem Services is an international, interdisciplinary journal that is associated with the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP). The journal is dedicated to exploring the science, policy, and practice related to ecosystem services, which are the various ways in which ecosystems contribute to human well-being, both directly and indirectly.
Ecosystem Services contributes to the broader goal of ensuring that the benefits of ecosystems are recognized, valued, and sustainably managed for the well-being of current and future generations. The journal serves as a platform for scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders to share their findings and insights, fostering collaboration and innovation in the field of ecosystem services.