IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v68y2017icp614-624.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of communication on an experimental market for tradable development rights

Author

Listed:
  • Proeger, Till
  • Meub, Lukas
  • Bizer, Kilian

Abstract

Tradable development rights (TDR) are discussed as a means of containing urban sprawl in numerous countries. Introducing a novel experimental setting, we simulate a cap & trade TDR scheme and investigate the effects of communication, specifically among competing market participants and within teams of decision-makers. Communication reduces auction prices, leading to substantially less income redistribution from participants to the auctioneer. Nevertheless, no collusion is sustained. Team decision-making reduces overshooting prices and improves the system’s efficiency. We interpret these results as emphasizing the efficiency and political feasibility of TDR schemes for economic contexts in which communication among its participants can be assumed.

Suggested Citation

  • Proeger, Till & Meub, Lukas & Bizer, Kilian, 2017. "The role of communication on an experimental market for tradable development rights," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 614-624.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:68:y:2017:i:c:p:614-624
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.08.021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837716311309
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.08.021?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lori Lynch & Sabrina J. Lovell, 2003. "Combining Spatial and Survey Data to Explain Participation in Agricultural Land reservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(2), pages 259-276.
    2. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    3. Ana C. Santos, 2011. "Behavioural and experimental economics: are they really transforming economics?," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 35(4), pages 705-728.
    4. Armin Falk & James J. Heckman, 2009. "Lab Experiments are a Major Source of Knowledge in the Social Sciences," Working Papers 200935, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    5. Michel Mougeot & Florence Naegelen & Benjamin Pelloux & Jean‐Louis Rullière, 2011. "Breaking Collusion in Auctions through Speculation: An Experiment on CO 2 Emission Permit Markets," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 13(5), pages 829-856, October.
    6. Ben Harman & Darryl Low Choy, 2011. "Perspectives on tradable development rights for ecosystem service protection: lessons from an Australian peri-urban region," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(5), pages 617-635.
    7. Paul Thorsnes & Gerald P. W. Simons, 1999. "Letting The Market Preserve Land: The Case For A Market‐Driven Transfer Of Development Rights Program," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 17(2), pages 256-266, April.
    8. Kugler, Tamar & Bornstein, Gary & Kocher, Martin G. & Sutter, Matthias, 2007. "Trust between individuals and groups: Groups are less trusting than individuals but just as trustworthy," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 646-657, December.
    9. David J. Cooper & John H. Kagel, 2005. "Are Two Heads Better Than One? Team versus Individual Play in Signaling Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 477-509, June.
    10. Lori Lynch & Wesley N. Musser, 2001. "A Relative Efficiency Analysis of Farmland Preservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(4), pages 577-594.
    11. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    12. Raj Chetty, 2015. "Behavioral Economics and Public Policy: A Pragmatic Perspective," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 1-33, May.
    13. Zaeske, Andrew L. & Krishnamurthy, Chandra Kiran B., 2017. "Water Markets, Water Rights and Economic Efficiency," CERE Working Papers 2017:2, CERE - the Center for Environmental and Resource Economics, revised 09 Oct 2023.
    14. Falk, Armin & Fehr, Ernst, 2003. "Why labour market experiments?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 399-406, August.
    15. Patricia Machemer & Michael Kaplowitz, 2002. "A Framework for Evaluating Transferable Development Rights Programmes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(6), pages 773-795.
    16. Gary Charness & Matthias Sutter, 2012. "Groups Make Better Self-Interested Decisions," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(3), pages 157-176, Summer.
    17. Charness, Gary & Karni, Edi & Levin, Dan, 2010. "On the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment: New experimental evidence regarding Linda," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 551-556, March.
    18. Dallas Burtraw & Jacob Goeree & Charles A. Holt & Erica Myers & Karen Palmer & William Shobe, 2009. "Collusion in auctions for emission permits: An experimental analysis," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 672-691.
    19. Frank J. Convery, 2009. "Reflections--The Emerging Literature on Emissions Trading in Europe," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(1), pages 121-137, Winter.
    20. Elizabeth Kopits & Virginia McConnell & Margaret Walls, 2008. "Making Markets for Development Rights Work: What Determines Demand?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 1-16.
    21. Hui Wang & Ran Tao & Juer Tong, 2009. "Trading Land Development Rights under a Planned Land Use System: The “Zhejiang Model”," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 17(1), pages 66-82, January.
    22. Tamar Kugler & Edgar E. Kausel & Martin G. Kocher, 2012. "Are Groups more Rational than Individuals? A Review of Interactive Decision Making in Groups," CESifo Working Paper Series 3701, CESifo.
    23. Martin G. Kocher & Matthias Sutter, 2005. "The Decision Maker Matters: Individual Versus Group Behaviour in Experimental Beauty-Contest Games," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(500), pages 200-223, January.
    24. Gary Charness & Edi Karni & Dan Levin, 2007. "Individual and group decision making under risk: An experimental study of Bayesian updating and violations of first-order stochastic dominance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 129-148, October.
    25. Ben. P. Harman & Rick Pruetz & Peter Houston, 2015. "Tradeable development rights to protect peri-urban areas: lessons from the United States and observations on Australian practice," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(2), pages 357-381, February.
    26. Greenstone, Michael & Gayer, Ted, 2009. "Quasi-experimental and experimental approaches to environmental economics," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 21-44, January.
    27. Greiner, Ben, 2004. "An Online Recruitment System for Economic Experiments," MPRA Paper 13513, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    28. Veronika Grimm & Lyuba Ilieva, 2013. "An experiment on emissions trading: the effect of different allocation mechanisms," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 308-338, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Till Proeger & Lukas Meub & Kilian Bizer, 2018. "Laboratory Experiments of Tradable Development Rights: A Synthesis of Different Treatments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    2. Henger, Ralph & Straub, Tim & Weinhardt, Christof, 2023. "Tradable planning permits in the field: Executive experimental results from Germany," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    3. Xin Janet Ge & Xiaoxia Liu, 2021. "Urban Land Use Efficiency under Resource-Based Economic Transformation—A Case Study of Shanxi Province," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, August.
    4. Tikoudis, Ioannis & Farrow, Katherine & Mebiame, Rose Mba & Oueslati, Walid, 2022. "Beyond average population density: Measuring sprawl with density-allocation indicators," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Till Proeger & Lukas Meub & Kilian Bizer, 2018. "Laboratory Experiments of Tradable Development Rights: A Synthesis of Different Treatments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    2. Faralla, Valeria & Borà, Guido & Innocenti, Alessandro & Novarese, Marco, 2020. "Promises in group decision making," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 1-11.
    3. Brosig-Koch, Jeannette & Heinrich, Timo & Helbach, Christoph, 2014. "Does truth win when teams reason strategically?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 123(1), pages 86-89.
    4. Jeanette Brosid-Koch & Timo Heinrich & Christoph Helbach, 2013. "Does Truth Win When Teams Reason Strategically?," Ruhr Economic Papers 0396, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    5. repec:zbw:rwirep:0396 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Alessia Isopi & Daniele Nosenzo & Chris Starmer, 2014. "Does consultation improve decision-making?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 377-388, October.
    7. Tibor Besedeš & Cary Deck & Sarah Quintanar & Sudipta Sarangi & Mikhail Shor, 2014. "Effort and Performance: What Distinguishes Interacting and Noninteracting Groups from Individuals?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 81(2), pages 294-322, October.
    8. Alessia Isopi & Daniele Nosenzo & Chris Starmer, 2014. "Does consultation improve decision-making?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 377-388, October.
    9. Montero, Maria & Sheth, Jesal D., 2021. "Naivety about hidden information: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 92-116.
    10. David J. Cooper & Krista Saral & Marie Claire Villeval, 2021. "Why Join a Team?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 6980-6997, November.
    11. Müller, Wieland & Tan, Fangfang, 2013. "Who acts more like a game theorist? Group and individual play in a sequential market game and the effect of the time horizon," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 658-674.
    12. Auerswald, Heike & Schmidt, Carsten & Thum, Marcel & Torsvik, Gaute, 2018. "Teams in a public goods experiment with punishment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 28-39.
    13. Cox, Caleb A. & Stoddard, Brock, 2018. "Strategic thinking in public goods games with teams," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 31-43.
    14. Fochmann, Martin & Fochmann, Nadja & Kocher, Martin G. & Müller, Nadja, 2021. "Dishonesty and risk-taking: Compliance decisions of individuals and groups," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 250-286.
    15. He, Haoran & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2017. "Are group members less inequality averse than individual decision makers?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 111-124.
    16. Han, Johann & Kairies-Schwarz, Nadja & Vomhof, Markus, 2016. "Quality competition and hospital mergers: An experiment," Ruhr Economic Papers 609, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    17. Keldenich, Klemens, 2012. "Group Membership and Communication in Modified Dictator Games," Ruhr Economic Papers 322, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    18. Klemens Keldenich, 2012. "Group Membership and Communication in Modified Dictator Games," Ruhr Economic Papers 0322, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    19. Matthias Sutter, 2009. "Individual Behavior and Group Membership: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 2247-2257, December.
    20. Francesco Feri & Bernd Irlenbusch & Matthias Sutter, 2010. "Efficiency Gains from Team-Based Coordination—Large-Scale Experimental Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1892-1912, September.
    21. Thum, Marcel & Auerswald, Heike & Schmidt, Carsten & Torsvik, Gaute, 2014. "Teams Contribute More and Punish Less," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100537, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cap & trade; Collusion; Communication; Economic experiment; Land consumption; Tradable planning permits;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty

    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:eee:lauspo:v:68:y:2017:i:c:p:614-624. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.