Effect of Information Disclosure Policies in Conservation Auctions

References

1. 1. Alekseev, A.,
   2. Charness, G., &
   3. Gneezy, U.

   (2017). Experimental methods: When and why contextual instructions are important. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 134, 48–59.

   OpenUrl
2. 1. Almond, R. E.,
   2. Grooten, M., &
   3. Peterson, T.

   (2020). Living Planet Report 2020-Bending the curve of biodiversity loss: World Wildlife Fund.
3. 1. Armsworth, P. R.,
   2. Jackson, H. B.,
   3. Cho, S.-H.,
   4. Clark, M.,
   5. Fargione, J. E.,
   6. Iacona, G. D., …
   7. Sutton, N. A.

   (2017). Factoring economic costs into conservation planning may not improve agreement over priorities for protection. Nature Communications, 8(1), 2253.

   OpenUrl
4. 1. Babcock, B. A.,
   2. Lakshminarayan, P.,
   3. Wu, J., &
   4. Zilberman, D.

   (1996). The economics of a public fund for environmental amenities: a study of CRP contracts. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 78(4), 961–971.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
5. 1. Banerjee, S.

   (2017). Improving spatial coordination rates under the agglomeration bonus scheme: A laboratory experiment with a pecuniary and a non-pecuniary mechanism (NUDGE). American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 100(1), 172–197.

   OpenUrl
6. 1. Banerjee, S.,
   2. Cason, T. N.,
   3. de Vries, F. P., &
   4. Hanley, N.

   (2017). Transaction costs, communication and spatial coordination in Payment for Ecosystem Services Schemes. Journal of environmental economics and management, 83, 68–89.

   OpenUrl
7. 1. Banerjee, S., &
   2. Conte, M. N.

   (2018). Information access, conservation practice choice, and rent seeking in conservation procurement auctions: evidence from a laboratory experiment. In: Wiley Online Library.
8. 1. Banerjee, S.,
   2. Kwasnica, A. M., &
   3. Shortle, J. S.

   (2015). Information and auction performance: a laboratory study of conservation auctions for spatially contiguous land management. Environmental and Resource Economics, 61(3), 409–431.

   OpenUrl
9. 1. Baum, K. A.,
   2. Haynes, K. J.,
   3. Dillemuth, F. P., &
   4. Cronin, J. T.

   (2004). The matrix enhances the effectiveness of corridors and stepping stones. Ecology, 85(10), 2671–2676.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
10. 1. Canavari, M.,
    2. Drichoutis, A. C.,
    3. Lusk, J. L., &
    4. Nayga Jr, R. M.

    (2019). How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 46(5), 862–922.

    OpenUrl
11. 1. Cason, T. N., &
    2. Gangadharan, L.

    (2004). Auction design for voluntary conservation programs. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(5), 1211–1217.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
12. 1. Cason, T. N.,
    2. Gangadharan, L., &
    3. Duke, C.

    (2003). A laboratory study of auctions for reducing non-point source pollution. Journal of environmental economics and management, 46(3), 446–471.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
13. 1. Child, D.

    (2006). The essentials of factor analysis: A&C Black.
14. 1. Chomitz, K. M.,
    2. da Fonseca, G. A.,
    3. Alger, K.,
    4. Stoms, D. M.,
    5. Honzák, M.,
    6. Landau, E. C.,
    7. Thomas, T.C.,
    8. Thomas, W.W.,
    9. Davis, F.

    (2006). Viable reserve networks arise from individual landholder responses to conservation incentives. Ecology and Society, 11(2).
15. 1. Coggan, A.,
    2. Buitelaar, E.,
    3. Whitten, S., &
    4. Bennett, J.

    (2013). Factors that influence transaction costs in development offsets: Who bears what and why? Ecological economics, 88, 222–231.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
16. 1. Coggan, A.,
    2. van Grieken, M.,
    3. Boullier, A., &
    4. Jardi, X.

    (2015). Private transaction costs of participation in water quality improvement programs for Australia’s Great Barrier Reef: Extent, causes and policy implications. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 59(4), 499–517.

    OpenUrl
17. 1. Coisnon, T.,
    2. Oueslati, W., &
    3. Salanié, J.

    (2014). Spatial targeting of agri-environmental policy and urban development. Ecological economics, 101, 33–42.

    OpenUrl
18. 1. Colucci, D.,
    2. Doni, N., &
    3. Valori, V.

    (2011). Information disclosure in procurement auctions with horizontally differentiated suppliers. Working paper. dimadwp2011-02.pdf
19. 1. Colucci, D.,
    2. Doni, N., &
    3. Valori, V.

    (2012). Preferential treatment in procurement auctions through information revelation. Economics letters, 117(3), 883–886.

    OpenUrl
20. 1. Colucci, D.,
    2. Doni, N., &
    3. Valori, V.

    (2015). Information policies in procurement auctions with heterogeneous suppliers. Journal of Economics, 114(3), 211–238.

    OpenUrl
21. 1. Conte, M. N., &
    2. Griffin, R. M.

    (2017). Quality information and procurement auction outcomes: evidence from a payment for ecosystem services laboratory experiment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 99(3), 571–591.

    OpenUrl
22. 1. Daniele, V.,
    2. Viaggi, D., &
    3. Raggi, M.

    (2017). Integrating spatial econometric information and optimisation models to improve agri-Environmental payment design: A resource allocation model for emilia-Romagna (Italy). Agricultural Economics Review, 18(2), 40–59.

    OpenUrl
23. 1. DeBoe, G.

    (2020). Economic and environmental sustainability performance of environmental policies in agriculture.
24. 1. Díaz, S. M.,
    2. Settele, J.,
    3. Brondízio, E.,
    4. Ngo, H.,
    5. Guèze, M.,
    6. Agard, J.,
    7. Arneth, A.,
    8. Balvanera, P.,
    9. Brauman, K.,
    10. Butchart, S. H. M.,
    11. Chan, K. M. A.,
    12. Garibaldi, L. A.,
    13. Ichii, K.,
    14. Liu, J.,
    15. Subramanian, S. M.

    , et al. (2019). The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Summary for Policy Makers. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn.
25. 1. Doni, N., &
    2. Menicucci, D.

    (2014). Alternative information disclosure policies in buyer-determined procurement auctions. Working paper, Universita degli Studi di Firenze.
26. 1. Dooley, E.

    (2018). Fine Tuning the Environmental Benefits Index to Achieve Cost Savings for the Conservation Reserve Program. Auburn University ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2018. 30263031.
27. 1. Drechsler, M.,
    2. Wätzold, F.,
    3. Johst, K., &
    4. Shogren, J. F.

    (2010). An agglomeration payment for cost-effective biodiversity conservation in spatially structured landscapes. Resource and Energy Economics, 32(2), 261–275.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
28. 1. Duch, M. L.,
    2. Grossmann, M. R., &
    3. Lauer, T.

    (2020). z-Tree unleashed: A novel client-integrating architecture for conducting z-Tree experiments over the Internet. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 28, 100400.

    OpenUrl
29. 1. Eckel, C. C., &
    2. Grossman, P. J.

    (2002). Sex differences and statistical stereotyping in attitudes toward financial risk. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(4), 281–295.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
30. 1. Ferraro, P. J.

    (2003). Assigning priority to environmental policy interventions in a heterogeneous world. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22(1), 27–43.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
31. 1. Ferraro, P. J.

    (2008). Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services. Ecological economics, 65(4), 810–821.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
32. 1. Fooks, J. R.,
    2. Higgins, N.,
    3. Messer, K. D.,
    4. Duke, J. M.,
    5. Hellerstein, D., &
    6. Lynch, L.

    (2016). Conserving spatially explicit benefits in ecosystem service markets: Experimental tests of network bonuses and spatial targeting. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 98(2), 468–488.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
33. 1. Fooks, J. R.,
    2. Messer, K. D., &
    3. Duke, J. M.

    (2015). Dynamic entry, reverse auctions, and the purchase of environmental services. Land Economics, 91(1), 57–75.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
34. FSA, U. (2012). Conservation Reserve Program Sign-up 43 Environmnetal Benefit Index (EBI). Agency, U.F.S.
35. 1. Gal-Or, E.,
    2. Gal-Or, M., &
    3. Dukes, A.

    (2007). Optimal information revelation in procurement schemes. The RAND Journal of Economics, 38(2), 400–418.

    OpenUrl
36. 1. Glebe, T. W.

    (2013). Conservation auctions: should information about environmental benefits be made public? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 95(3), 590–605.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
37. 1. Groth, M.

    (2008). Private ex-ante transaction costs for repeated biodiversity conservation auctions: a case study. Working Paper Series in Economics no. 84, University of Lüneburg.
38. 1. Gwebu, K. L.,
    2. Hu, M. Y., &
    3. Shanker, M. S.

    (2012). An experimental investigation into the effects of information revelation in multi-attribute reverse auctions. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(6), 631–644.

    OpenUrl
39. 1. Heimlich, R. E.

    (1989). Productivity and erodibility of US cropland: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
40. 1. Hellerstein, D. M.

    (2017). The US Conservation Reserve Program: The evolution of an enrollment mechanism. Land Use Policy, 63, 601–610.

    OpenUrl
41. 1. Iftekhar, M. S.,
    2. Hailu, A., &
    3. Lindner, R.

    (2012). The effect of bidder heterogeneity on combinatorial conservation auction designs. Environmental and Resource Economics, 53(1), 137–157.

    OpenUrl
42. 1. Iftekhar, M. S., &
    2. Latacz-Lohmann, U.

    (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, 61(4), 557–575.

    OpenUrl
43. 1. Iftekhar, M. S., &
    2. Tisdell, J. G.

    (2016). An agent based analysis of combinatorial bidding for spatially targeted multi-objective environmental programs. Environmental and Resource Economics, 64(4), 537–558.

    OpenUrl
44. 1. Kirwan, B.,
    2. Lubowski, R. N., &
    3. Roberts, M. J.

    (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, 87(5), 1239–1247.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
45. 1. Kramer-Schadt, S.,
    2. S Kaiser, T.,
    3. Frank, K., &
    4. Wiegand, T.

    (2011). Analyzing the effect of stepping stones on target patch colonisation in structured landscapes for Eurasian lynx. Landscape Ecology, 26, 501–513.

    OpenUrl
46. 1. Krawczyk, M.,
    2. Bartczak, A.,
    3. Hanley, N., &
    4. Stenger, A.

    (2016). Buying spatially-coordinated ecosystem services: An experiment on the role of auction format and communication. Ecological economics, 124, 36–48.

    OpenUrl
47. 1. Kuhfuss, L.,
    2. Préget, R.,
    3. Thoyer, S.,
    4. de Vries, F. P., &
    5. Hanley, N.

    (2022). Enhancing spatial coordination in payment for ecosystem services schemes with non-pecuniary preferences. Ecological economics, 192, 107271.

    OpenUrl
48. 1. Lankoski, J.

    (2016). Alternative payment approaches for biodiversity conservation in agriculture.
49. 1. Latacz-Lohmann, U., &
    2. Schilizzi, S.

    (2005). Auctions for conservation contracts: a review of the theoretical and empirical literature. Report to the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department, 15.
50. 1. Latacz-Lohmann, U., &
    2. Van der Hamsvoort, C.

    (1997). Auctioning conservation contracts: a theoretical analysis and an application. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79(2), 407–418.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
51. 1. Latacz-Lohmann, U., &
    2. Van der Hamsvoort, C. P.

    (1998). Auctions as a means of creating a market for public goods from agriculture. Journal of agricultural economics, 49(3), 334–345.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
52. 1. Liu, P.

    (2021). Balancing cost effectiveness and incentive properties in conservation auctions: experimental evidence from three multi-award reverse auction mechanisms. Environmental and Resource Economics, 78(3), 417–451.

    OpenUrl
53. 1. Lundberg, L.,
    2. Persson, U. M.,
    3. Alpizar, F., &
    4. Lindgren, K.

    (2018). Context matters: exploring the cost-effectiveness of fixed payments and procurement auctions for PES. Ecological economics, 146, 347–358.

    OpenUrl
54. 1. Maes, J.,
    2. Egoh, B.,
    3. Willemen, L.,
    4. Liquete, C.,
    5. Vihervaara, P.,
    6. Schägner, J. P.,
    7. Zulian, G.

    (2012). Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 31–39.

    OpenUrl
55. 1. McCann, L., &
    2. Claassen, R.

    (2016). Farmer transaction costs of participating in federal conservation programs: magnitudes and determinants. Land Economics, 92(2), 256–272.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
56. 1. Messer, K. D.,
    2. Duke, J. M., &
    3. Lynch, L.

    (2014). Applying experiments to land economics: public information and auction efficiency in ecosystem service markets. In: Duke JM, Wu J (eds) The Oxford handbook of land economics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 481–546
57. 1. Messer, K. D.,
    2. Duke, J. M.,
    3. Lynch, L., &
    4. Li, T.

    (2017). When does public information undermine the efficiency of reverse auctions for the purchase of ecosystem services? Ecological economics, 134, 212–226.

    OpenUrl
58. 1. Mettepenningen, E.,
    2. Verspecht, A., &
    3. Van Huylenbroeck, G.

    (2009). Measuring private transaction costs of European agri-environmental schemes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(5), 649–667.

    OpenUrl
59. 1. Milfont, T. L., &
    2. Duckitt, J.

    (2010). The environmental attitudes inventory: A valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 80–94.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
60. 1. Moore, J.,
    2. Balmford, A.,
    3. Allnutt, T., &
    4. Burgess, N.

    (2004). Integrating costs into conservation planning across Africa. Biological Conservation, 117(3), 343–350.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
61. 1. Nguyen, C.,
    2. Latacz-Lohmann, U.,
    3. Hanley, N.,
    4. Schilizzi, S., &
    5. Iftekhar, S.

    (2022). Spatial Coordination Incentives for landscape-scale environmental management: A systematic review. Land Use Policy, 114, 105936.

    OpenUrl
62. 1. Nguyen, C.,
    2. Latacz-Lohmann, U.,
    3. Hanley, N.

    (2024). Landscape-level determinants of the performance of an agglomeration bonus in conservation auctions. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75(2), 592–616.

    OpenUrl
63. 1. Olivieri, M.,
    2. Andreoli, M.,
    3. Vergamini, D., &
    4. Bartolini, F.

    (2021). Innovative Contract Solutions for the Provision of Agri-Environmental Climatic Public Goods: A Literature Review. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(12), 6936.

    OpenUrl
64. 1. Palm-Forster, L. H.,
    2. Swinton, S. M.,
    3. Lupi, F., &
    4. Shupp, R. S.

    (2016). Too burdensome to bid: transaction costs and pay-for-performance conservation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 98(5), 1314–1333.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
65. 1. Parkhurst, G. M.,
    2. Shogren, J. F.,
    3. Bastian, C.,
    4. Kivi, P.,
    5. Donner, J., &
    6. Smith, R. B.

    (2002). Agglomeration bonus: an incentive mechanism to reunite fragmented habitat for biodiversity conservation. Ecological economics, 41(2), 305–328.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
66. 1. Pe’er, G.,
    2. Bonn, A.,
    3. Bruelheide, H.,
    4. Dieker, P.,
    5. Eisenhauer, N.,
    6. Feindt, P.,
    7. Lomba, Â.

    (2020). Action needed for the EU Common Agricultural Policy to address sustainability challenges. People and Nature, 2(2), 305–316.

    OpenUrl
67. 1. Qian, C., &
    2. Anderson, E.

    (2020). Buyer’s optimal information revelation strategy in procurement auctions. European Journal of Operational Research, 283(3), 1011–1025.

    OpenUrl
68. 1. Quiroga, B. F.,
    2. Moritz, B. B., &
    3. Guide Jr, V. D. R.

    (2021). The role of transparency in procurement: Revealed versus concealed scoring rules in sealed bid A+ B auctions. Journal of Operations Management, 67(1), 71–81.

    OpenUrl
69. 1. Rolfe, J.,
    2. Schilizzi, S.,
    3. Boxall, P.,
    4. Latacz-Lohmann, U.,
    5. Iftekhar, S.,
    6. Star, M., &
    7. O’Connor, P.

    (2018). Identifying the causes of low participation rates in conservation tenders. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 12(1), 1–45.

    OpenUrl
70. 1. Sarker, A.,
    2. Ross, H., &
    3. Shrestha, K. K.

    (2008). A common-pool resource approach for water quality management: An Australian case study. Ecological economics, 68(1-2), 461–471.

    OpenUrl
71. 1. Simpson, K. H.,
    2. de Vries, F. P.,
    3. Dallimer, M.,
    4. Armsworth, P. R., &
    5. Hanley, N.

    (2022). Ecological and economic implications of alternative metrics in biodiversity offset markets. Conservation biology, 36(5), e13906.

    OpenUrl
72. 1. Stoll, S., &
    2. Zöttl, G.

    (2017). Transparency in Buyer-Determined Auctions: Should Quality be Private or Public? Production and Operations Management, 26(11), 2006–2032.

    OpenUrl
73. 1. Suresh, K.

    (2011). An overview of randomization techniques: an unbiased assessment of outcome in clinical research. Journal of human reproductive sciences, 4(1), 8.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
74. 1. Szentandrasi, S.,
    2. Polasky, S.,
    3. Berrens, R., &
    4. Leonard, J.

    (1995). Conserving biological diversity and the Conservation Reserve Program. Growth and Change, 26(3), 383–404.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
75. 1. Thomson, J.,
    2. Regan, T. J.,
    3. Hollings, T.,
    4. Amos, N.,
    5. Geary, W. L.,
    6. Parkes, D.,
    7. White, M.

    (2020). Spatial conservation action planning in heterogeneous landscapes. Biological Conservation, 250, 108735.

    OpenUrl
76. 1. Voors, M.,
    2. Turley, T.,
    3. Kontoleon, A.,
    4. Bulte, E., &
    5. List, J. A.

    (2012). Exploring whether behavior in context-free experiments is predictive of behavior in the field: Evidence from lab and field experiments in rural Sierra Leone. Economics letters, 114(3), 308–311.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
77. 1. Vukina, T.,
    2. Zheng, X.,
    3. Marra, M., &
    4. Levy, A.

    (2008). Do farmers value the environment? Evidence from a conservation reserve program auction. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 26(6), 1323–1332.

    OpenUrl
78. 1. Warziniack, T.,
    2. Shogren, J. F., &
    3. Parkhurst, G.

    (2007). Creating contiguous forest habitat: An experimental examination on incentives and communication. Journal of Forest Economics, 13(2-3), 191–207.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
79. 1. Weber, A. M.

    (2011). Why do Farmers Spend Different Amounts of Transaction Costs in Agri-Environmental Schemes? European Association of Agricultural Economists: 2011 International Congress, August 30–September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland.
80. 1. Wu, J.,
    2. Zhang, S.,
    3. Luo, Y.,
    4. Wang, H., &
    5. Zhao, Y.

    (2022). Assessment of risks to habitat connectivity through the stepping-stone theory: A case study from Shenzhen, China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 71, 127532.

    OpenUrl
81. 1. Yano, Y., &
    2. Blandford, D.

    (2009). Use of compliance rewards in agri-environmental schemes. Journal of agricultural economics, 60(3), 530–545.

    OpenUrl
82. 1. Zhang, J.,
    2. Tian, J., &
    3. Gong, X.

    (2014). Study on the Effect of Information Disclosure Policy in Multi-attribute Reverse Auctions. Paper presented at the 2014 Seventh International Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Design.