IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare14/167195.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An experimental approach to assessment of trading and allocation mechanisms for nutrient trading

Author

Listed:
  • Marsh, Dan
  • Tucker, Steve
  • Doole, Graeme

Abstract

Regional councils throughout New Zealand are in the process of drawing up plans to enable them to meet the requirements of the Resource Management Act and the National Policy Statement on freshwater. Some councils are working on targets for nutrient leaching at the catchment level and are considering alternative approaches to ensuring these targets are achieved. In this paper we investigate the farm level effects of agricultural policies by employing the methods of experimental economics to investigate alternative mechanisms for farm and catchment level regulations aimed at improving water quality. Results are presented for four cap and trade system designs in order to assess the effect of alternative approaches to allocation of nutrient discharge allowances and rules governing trade or exchange of these allowances. The objective of this study is to assess the utility of cap and trade systems through experimental economics, with a focus on the efficiency and equity of these mechanisms. Cap and trade systems are promoted as one of the major achievements of environmental economics. However, the move from theory to field implementation is a difficult transition, particularly due to the prevalence of uncertainty and the bounded cognitive ability of real agents. Data from the experiments enables comparison of the results of nutrient trading with the outcomes that would be expected based on economic theory. This assessment of the relative performance of cap and trade systems highlights important findings for environmental regulation. First, catchment profit is around 10% lower than predicted by theory. Second, the distribution of profit among farmers has little in common with that predicted by theory. Third, the trading behaviour of farmers bears little resemblance to theoretical predictions. Overall, these findings highlight the need to carefully assess the efficiency, equity and overall benefits of cap and trade systems for environmental regulation.

Suggested Citation

  • Marsh, Dan & Tucker, Steve & Doole, Graeme, 2014. "An experimental approach to assessment of trading and allocation mechanisms for nutrient trading," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 167195, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare14:167195
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.167195
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/167195/files/AARES%202014%20Final%20v3%20080414-1.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.167195?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jordan F. Suter & Christian A. Vossler & Gregory L. Poe & Kathleen Segerson, 2008. "Experiments on Damage-Based Ambient Taxes for Nonpoint Source Polluters," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(1), pages 86-102.
    2. Graeme J. Doole & David J. Pannell, 2012. "Empirical evaluation of nonpoint pollution policies under agent heterogeneity: regulating intensive dairy production in the Waikato region of New Zealand," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 56(1), pages 82-101, January.
    3. Jon Ketcham & Vernon L. Smith & Arlington W. Williams, 1984. "A Comparison of Posted-Offer and Double-Auction Pricing Institutions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 51(4), pages 595-614.
    4. Suter, Jordan F. & Vossler, Christian A. & Poe, Gregory L. & Segerson, Kathleen, 2008. "AJAE Appendix: Experiments on Damage-Based Ambient Taxes for Nonpoint Source Polluters," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(01), pages 1-14, February.
    5. Giuseppe Attanasi & Samuele Centorrino & Ivan Moscati, 2011. "Double Auction Equilibrium and Efficiency in a Classroom Experimental Search Market," LERNA Working Papers 11.03.337, LERNA, University of Toulouse.
    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. Spicer, E. Anne & Swaffield, Simon & Moore, Kevin, 2021. "Agricultural land use management responses to a cap and trade regime for water quality in Lake Taupo catchment, New Zealand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(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. 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.
    2. Hamet SARR & Mohamed Ali BCHIR & François COCHARD & Anne ROZAN, 2021. "Is the “average Pigouvian tax” robust to the size of the group of polluters?," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 285-295, September.
    3. Graeme J. Doole, 2010. "Evaluating Input Standards for Non‐Point Pollution Control under Firm Heterogeneity," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 680-696, September.
    4. Hamet Sarr & Mohamed Ali Bchir & Francois Cochard & Anne Rozan, 2016. "Nonpoint source pollution: An experimental investigation of the Average Pigouvian Tax," Working Papers hal-01375078, HAL.
    5. Wu, Shang & Palm-Forster, Leah H. & Messer, Kent D., 2021. "Impact of peer comparisons and firm heterogeneity on nonpoint source water pollution: An experimental study," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    6. Suter, Jordan F. & Vossler, Christian A. & Poe, Gregory L., 2009. "Ambient-based pollution mechanisms: A comparison of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups of emitters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1883-1892, April.
    7. Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2011. "The Economics of Non-Point-Source Pollution," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 3(1), pages 355-373, October.
    8. Hamet SARR & Mohamed Ali BCHIR & François COCHARD & Anne ROZAN, 2016. "Nonpoint source pollution: An experimental investigation of the Average Pigouvian Tax," Working Papers 2016-05, CRESE.
    9. Ohnishi, Kazuhiro, 2021. "Pollution, partial privatization and the effect of ambient charges," MPRA Paper 109592, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 04 Sep 2021.
    10. Kai-Uwe Kuhn & Neslihan Uler, 2019. "Behavioral sources of the demand for carbon offsets: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(3), pages 676-704, September.
    11. Marc Willinger & Nasreddine Ammar & Ahmed Ennasri, 2014. "Performance of the Ambient Tax: Does the Nature of the Damage Matter?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(3), pages 479-502, November.
    12. Rodriguez, Luz A. & Pfaff, Alexander & Velez, Maria Alejandra, 2019. "Graduated stringency within collective incentives for group environmental compliance: Building coordination in field-lab experiments with artisanal gold miners in Colombia," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    13. Anna Lou Abatayo & Tongzhe Li, 2024. "Public goods and bads with vulnerable individuals: How information and social nudges change behaviour," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(2), pages 556-587, May.
    14. Hansen, Lars Gårn, 2020. "A Montero payment mechanism for regulating non-point pollution emissions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    15. Banerjee, Simanti & Cason, Timothy N. & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2017. "Transaction costs, communication and spatial coordination in Payment for Ecosystem Services Schemes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 68-89.
    16. Stephanie Rosch & Sharon Raszap Skorbiansky & Collin Weigel & Kent D. Messer & Daniel Hellerstein, 2021. "Barriers to Using Economic Experiments in Evidence‐Based Agricultural Policymaking," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 531-555, June.
    17. François Cochard & Julie Le Gallo & Laurent Franckx, 2015. "Regulation Of Pollution In The Laboratory: Random Inspections, Ambient Inspections, And Commitment Problems," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(S1), pages 40-73, December.
    18. Ahmad Naimzada & Marina Pireddu, 2023. "Differentiated goods in a dynamic Cournot duopoly with emission charges on output," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 46(1), pages 305-318, June.
    19. James Shortle & Richard D. Horan, 2013. "Policy Instruments for Water Quality Protection," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 5(1), pages 111-138, June.
    20. Ohnishi, Kazuhiro, 2021. "The environmental effect of ambient charges in mixed triopoly with diverse firm objectives," MPRA Paper 108521, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Environmental Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aare14:167195. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    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.