IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ias/cpaper/21-wp622.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluating the Efficiency-Participation Tradeoff in Agricultural Conservation Programs: The Effect of Reverse Auctions, Spatial Targeting, and Higher Offered Payments

Author

Abstract

Using a survey of 430 farmer respondents in the Boone and North Raccoon River watersheds in Iowa, we examine the impacts of three program innovations-reverse auctions, spatially targeted payments, and higher offered payments-on agricultural water conservation program efficiency and participation by farmers. We combine farmer responses to a discrete choice experiment offering voluntary conservation contracts with township-level estimates of per-acre nitrogen reductions from each practice derived from the process-based ecohydrological Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model. Using a random-parameters logit model, we show that both cost-reducing and benefit-boosting interventions reduce costs per projected pound of nitrogen removed from the watershed for each practice and thus are more cost-effective than the prevailing current cost-share programs. However, we find that these interventions can reduce participation by 30%-70%. Furthermore, we find cover crop contracts are far more cost-effective than no-till/strip-till split N application contracts.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregory Howard & Wendong Zhang & Adriana Valcu-Lisman & Philip W. Gassman, 2022. "Evaluating the Efficiency-Participation Tradeoff in Agricultural Conservation Programs: The Effect of Reverse Auctions, Spatial Targeting, and Higher Offered Payments," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 21-wp622, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    • Handle: RePEc:ias:cpaper:21-wp622
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/pdf/21wp622.pdf
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/synopsis/?p=1332
    File Function: Online Synopsis
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Duke, Joshua M. & Dundas, Steven J. & Johnston, Robert J. & Messer, Kent D., 2014. "Prioritizing payment for environmental services: Using nonmarket benefits and costs for optimal selection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 319-329.
    2. Christian A. Vossler & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2012. "Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 145-171, November.
    3. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
    4. Michael A. Arnold & Joshua M. Duke & Kent D. Messer, 2013. "Adverse Selection in Reverse Auctions for Ecosystem Services," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(3), pages 387-412.
    5. Joshua M.Duke & Steven J. Dundas & Kent D. Messer, 2012. "Cost Effective Conservation Planning: Twenty Lessons from Economics," Working Papers 12-01, University of Delaware, Department of Economics.
    6. Jeffrey M. Peterson & Craig M. Smith & John C. Leatherman & Nathan P. Hendricks & John A. Fox, 2015. "Transaction Costs in Payment for Environmental Service Contracts," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(1), pages 219-238.
    7. Gassman, Philip W. & Reyes, Manuel R. & Green, Colleen H. & Arnold, Jeffrey G., 2007. "The Soil and Water Assessment Tool: Historical Development, Applications, and Future Research Directions," ISU General Staff Papers 200701010800001027, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    8. Hongxing Liu & Wendong Zhang & Elena Irwin & Jeffrey Kast & Noel Aloysius & Jay Martin & Margaret Kalcic, 2020. "Best Management Practices and Nutrient Reduction: An Integrated Economic-Hydrologic Model of the Western Lake Erie Basin," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 96(4), pages 510-530.
    9. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    10. Ribaudo, Marc O. & Heimlich, Ralph & Peters, Mark, 2005. "Nitrogen sources and Gulf hypoxia: potential for environmental credit trading," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 159-168, January.
    11. Sohngen, Brent & King, Kevin W. & Howard, Gregory & Newton, John & Forster, D. Lynn, 2015. "Nutrient prices and concentrations in Midwestern agricultural watersheds," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 141-149.
    12. Collins, Jill P. & Vossler, Christian A., 2009. "Incentive compatibility tests of choice experiment value elicitation questions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 226-235, September.
    13. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    14. Michael R. J. Hill & D. Glen McMaster & Tom Harrison & Aron Hershmiller & Trevor Plews, 2011. "A Reverse Auction for Wetland Restoration in the Assiniboine River Watershed, Saskatchewan," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 59, pages 245-258, June.
    15. Leah H. Palm-Forster & Scott M. Swinton & Frank Lupi & Robert S. Shupp, 2016. "Too Burdensome to Bid: Transaction Costs and Pay-for-Performance Conservation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(5), pages 1314-1333.
    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. Wan, Xiaolan & Howard, Gregory & Zhang, Wendong, 2022. "Enrollment Restrictions and the Adoption of Conservation Practices in the U.S. Corn Belt," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322793, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Zhaoyang Liu & Simanti Banerjee & Timothy N. Cason & Nick Hanley & Qi Liu & Jintao Xu & Andreas Kontoleon, 2024. "Spatially coordinated conservation auctions: A framed field experiment focusing on farmland wildlife conservation in China," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(4), pages 1354-1379, August.

    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. Gregory Howard & Wendong Zhang & Adriana Valcu‐Lisman & Philip W. Gassman, 2024. "Evaluating the tradeoff between cost effectiveness and participation in agricultural conservation programs," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(2), pages 712-738, March.
    2. Leah H. Palm-Forster & Scott M. Swinton & Frank Lupi & Robert S. Shupp, 2016. "Too Burdensome to Bid: Transaction Costs and Pay-for-Performance Conservation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(5), pages 1314-1333.
    3. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    4. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    5. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    6. Cloé Garnache & Scott M. Swinton & Joseph A. Herriges & Frank Lupi & R. Jan Stevenson, 2016. "Solving the Phosphorus Pollution Puzzle: Synthesis and Directions for Future Research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(5), pages 1334-1359.
    7. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2017. "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266327, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    8. Ndebele, Tom & Johnston, Robert J. & Newburn, David, 2020. "Transaction Costs and Household Adoption of Stormwater Best Management Practices," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304338, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Mohammed Hussen Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "An analysis of the impacts of tasting experience and peer effects on consumers’ willingness to pay for novel foods," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 653-674, October.
    10. Katherine Silz Carson & Susan M. Chilton & W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2020. "Public resource allocation, strategic behavior, and status quo bias in choice experiments," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 185(1), pages 1-19, October.
    11. 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.
    12. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Zhang, Wendong, 2024. "Omitted downstream attributes and the benefits of nutrient reductions: Implications for choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    13. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    14. Wiktor Adamowicz & Mark Dickie & Shelby Gerking & Marcella Veronesi & David Zinner, 2014. "Household Decision Making and Valuation of Environmental Health Risks to Parents and Their Children," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(4), pages 481-519.
    15. Samuel D. Bell & Nadia A. Streletskaya, 2019. "The Random Quantity Mechanism: Laboratory and Field Tests of a Novel Cost-Revealing Procurement Mechanism," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 899-921, July.
    16. Hongxing Liu & Wendong Zhang & Elena Irwin & Jeffrey Kast & Noel Aloysius & Jay Martin & Margaret Kalcic, 2020. "Best Management Practices and Nutrient Reduction: An Integrated Economic-Hydrologic Model of the Western Lake Erie Basin," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 96(4), pages 510-530.
    17. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stephane Luchini & Jason Shogren & Verity Watson, 2019. "Discrete Choice under Oaths," Post-Print halshs-02136103, HAL.
    18. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason F. Shogren, 2017. "Referenda Under Oath," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(3), pages 479-504, July.
    19. Scheufele, Gabriela & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2010. "Ordering effects and strategic response in discrete choice experiments," Research Reports 107743, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    20. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.

    More about this item

    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:ias:cpaper:21-wp622. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caiasus.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.