IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i6p1972-d152054.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Laboratory Experiments of Tradable Development Rights: A Synthesis of Different Treatments

Author

Listed:
  • Till Proeger

    (Chair of Economic Policy and SME Research, University of Goettingen, 37073 Goettingen, Germany)

  • Lukas Meub

    (Chair of Economic Policy and SME Research, University of Goettingen, 37073 Goettingen, Germany)

  • Kilian Bizer

    (Chair of Economic Policy and SME Research, University of Goettingen, 37073 Goettingen, Germany)

Abstract

Tradable development rights (TDR) are considered by scholars and regulators in various countries as a means of reducing land consumption efficiently. Similar to the development of CO 2 -certificate trading schemes, the methodology of experimental economics can be used to derive empirical evidence on the core parameters and problems of TDR schemes, thus extending theoretical modelling and evidence from case studies. Building on a common laboratory experimental framework, we discuss results from five distinct experiments that consider mechanisms of allocation, resilience against external shocks, political business cycles, communication and collusion, and risk. These results provide initial empirical directions for the further study and introduction of TDR schemes for managing and reducing environmental issues related to land consumption for building projects.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:6:p:1972-:d:152054
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1972/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1972/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Raj Chetty, 2015. "Behavioral Economics and Public Policy: A Pragmatic Perspective," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 1-33, May.
    3. 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.
    4. Volker Beckmann & Martina Padmanabhan, 2009. "Analysing Institutions: What Method to Apply?," Springer Books, in: Volker Beckmann & Martina Padmanabhan (ed.), Institutions and Sustainability, chapter 16, pages 341-371, Springer.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Rong Tan & Volker Beckmann, 2010. "Diversity of Practical Quota Systems for Farmland Preservation: A Multicountry Comparison and Analysis," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 28(2), pages 211-224, April.
    16. Fischer, Beate & Klauer, Bernd & Schiller, Johannes, 2013. "Prospects for sustainable land-use policy in Germany: Experimenting with a sustainability heuristic," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 213-220.
    17. Ezio Micelli, 2002. "Development Rights Markets to Manage Urban Plans in Italy," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 39(1), pages 141-154, January.
    18. Proeger Till & Meub Lukas & Bizer Kilian & Henger Ralph, 2017. "Die Effizienz von Zuteilungsmechanismen bei Flächenzertifikaten zwischen Versteigerung und Grandfathering – experimentelle Evidenz," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 66(1), pages 80-109, April.
    19. Till Proeger & Lukas Meub & Kilian Bizer, 2018. "Tradable development rights under uncertainty: an experimental approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(3), pages 303-323, July.
    20. Bizer, Kilian & Henger, Ralph & Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till, 2014. "The political economy of certificates for land use in Germany: Experimental evidence," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 225, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    21. 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.
    22. Brigitte C. Madrian, 2014. "Applying Insights from Behavioral Economics to Policy Design," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 663-688, August.
    23. 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.
    24. Evangeline R Linkous, 2017. "Transfer of development rights and urban land markets," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(5), pages 1122-1145, May.
    25. Falk, Armin & Fehr, Ernst, 2003. "Why labour market experiments?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 399-406, August.
    26. Joskow, Paul L & Schmalensee, Richard & Bailey, Elizabeth M, 1998. "The Market for Sulfur Dioxide Emissions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 669-685, September.
    27. 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.
    28. Jean-Daniel Rinaudo & Javier Calatrava & Marine Vernier De Byans, 2016. "Tradable water saving certificates to improve urban water use efficiency: an ex-ante evaluation in a French case study," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 60(3), pages 422-441, July.
    29. Gianluca Menghini & Fabian Gemperle & Irmi Seidl & Kay W Axhausen, 2015. "Results of an Agent-Based Market Simulation for Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in Switzerland," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 42(1), pages 157-183, February.
    30. 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.
    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. 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).
    2. Oliver Dillmann & Volker Beckmann, 2018. "Do Administrative Incentives for the Containment of Cities Work? An Analysis of the Accelerated Procedure for Binding Land-Use Plans for Inner Urban Development in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-20, December.

    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. 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.
    2. Proeger, Till & Meub, Lukas & Bizer, Kilian, 2015. "Tradable development rights under uncertainty: An experimental approach," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 270, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    3. Proeger, Till & Meub, Lukas & Bizer, Kilian, 2016. "The role of communication on an experimental market for tradable development rights," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 271, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    4. Proeger Till & Meub Lukas & Bizer Kilian & Henger Ralph, 2017. "Die Effizienz von Zuteilungsmechanismen bei Flächenzertifikaten zwischen Versteigerung und Grandfathering – experimentelle Evidenz," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 66(1), pages 80-109, April.
    5. Requate, Till & Camacho-Cuena, Eva & Kean Siang, Ch'ng & Waichman, Israel, 2019. "Tell the truth or not? The montero mechanism for emissions control at work," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 133-152.
    6. Heike Hennig‐Schmidt & Hendrik Jürges & Daniel Wiesen, 2019. "Dishonesty in health care practice: A behavioral experiment on upcoding in neonatology," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(3), pages 319-338, March.
    7. Yidi Wang & Ying Fan & Zan Yang, 2022. "Challenges, Experience, and Prospects of Urban Renewal in High-Density Cities: A Review for Hong Kong," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-20, December.
    8. Danilov, Anastasia & Harbring, Christine & Irlenbusch, Bernd, 2019. "Helping under a combination of team and tournament incentives," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 120-135.
    9. Sloof, Randolph & van Praag, C. Mirjam, 2010. "The effect of noise in a performance measure on work motivation: A real effort laboratory experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 751-765, October.
    10. Joshua M. Duke & Lori Lynch, 2006. "Farmland Retention Techniques: Property Rights Implications and Comparative Evaluation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(2), pages 189-213.
    11. Doerrenberg, Philipp & Duncan, Denvil, 2014. "Experimental evidence on the relationship between tax evasion opportunities and labor supply," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 48-70.
    12. Julia Brüggemann & Kilian Bizer, 2016. "Laboratory experiments in innovation research: a methodological overview and a review of the current literature," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    13. Walls, Margaret & McConnell, Virginia & Kopits, Elizabeth, 2003. "How Well Can Markets for Development Rights Work? Evaluating a Farmland Preservation Program," RFF Working Paper Series dp-03-08, Resources for the Future.
    14. Weimann Joachim, 2015. "Die Rolle von Verhaltensökonomik und experimenteller Forschung in Wirtschaftswissenschaft und Politikberatung," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 16(3), pages 231-252, October.
    15. Ferreira, António, 2020. "Reconsidering the merit of market-oriented planning innovations: Critical insights on Transferable Development Rights from Coimbra, Portugal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    16. Bizer, Kilian & Henger, Ralph & Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till, 2014. "The political economy of certificates for land use in Germany: Experimental evidence," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 225, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    17. Werner, Peter & Riedl, Arno, 2018. "The role of experiments for policy design," Research Memorandum 022, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    18. Lucia Marchegiani & Tommaso Reggiani & Matteo Rizzolli, 2013. "Severity vs. Leniency Bias in Performance Appraisal: Experimental evidence," BEMPS - Bozen Economics & Management Paper Series BEMPS01, Faculty of Economics and Management at the Free University of Bozen.
    19. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    20. Gary Bolton & Eugen Dimant & Ulrich Schmidt, 2018. "When a Nudge Backfires. Using Observation with Social and Economic Incentives to Promote Pro-Social Behavior," PPE Working Papers 0017, Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Pennsylvania.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:6:p:1972-:d:152054. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.