Environmental Risk Negatively Impacts Trust and Reciprocity in Conservation Contracts: Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment

被引:0
|
作者
Nora Vogt
机构
[1] Georg-August University of Göttingen,Department of Economics
[2] Leibniz Forum for Spatial Sciences,Academy for Spatial Research and Planning
来源
关键词
Auctions; Conservation tenders; Conservation contracts; Laboratory experiments; Environmental risk; Trust; Reciprocity; Q57; D82; H4; C9;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Conservation contracts between a landholder and an agency are characterised by information asymmetries since monitoring is incomplete and the provided outcome is often not verifiable. This contractual relationship is complicated by environmental risk, e.g. climatic conditions, that are often observable for the landholder, only. It was tested whether environmental risk is detrimental to the establishment of a reciprocal payment-effort relationship in an experimental auction-market for a public good. In this market, auction winning sellers either reinvest their contract payment in a public good or behave opportunistically and exploit information rents. The data show that environmental risk increases opportunistic behaviour of some sellers and disturbs the formation of effective, reciprocal contract relationships between the contracting buyers and sellers. Buyers do no longer trust sellers, pay minimal payments and break up after negative shocks. Repeated interaction mitigates the influence of environmental risk by benefitting contract enforcement and increasing efficiency due to higher reinvestment shares of payments, although the effect is less strong than in a comparable environment without risk. These results suggest that in a variable environment competitive bidding might be a less suitable mechanism for allocating conservation funds.
引用
收藏
页码:417 / 431
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Terrorism, Trust, and Identity: Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Nigeria
    Harding, Robin
    Nwokolo, Arinze
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 2024, 68 (03) : 942 - 957
  • [32] Reciprocity and Willingness to Pay Taxes: Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Latin America
    Ortega, Daniel
    Ronconi, Lucas
    Sanguinetti, Pablo
    ECONOMIA-JOURNAL OF THE LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION, 2016, 16 (02): : 55 - 87
  • [33] Nudging Green Preferences: Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment
    Permana, Yudistira Hendra
    Sanjaya, Muhammad Ryan
    JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE ECONOMICS AND POLICY, 2022, 13 (02)
  • [34] Risk-taking in vaccination, surgery, and gambling environments: Evidence from a framed laboratory experiment
    Binder, Simon
    Nuscheler, Robert
    HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2017, 26 : 76 - 96
  • [35] BMI is not related to altruism, fairness, trust or reciprocity: Experimental evidence from the field and the lab
    Branas-Garza, Pablo
    Espin, Antonio M.
    Lenkei, Balint
    PHYSIOLOGY & BEHAVIOR, 2016, 156 : 79 - 93
  • [36] Environmental impacts beyond land use and conservation risk hotspots: Coffee and tea
    Bawa, Kamaljit S.
    Liu, Jianguo
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2023, 120 (48)
  • [37] Who pays and who should pay for the uncertain conservation cost in biodiversity banking programs: evidence from a laboratory experiment
    Higashida, Keisaku
    Tanaka, Kenta
    Managi, Shunsuke
    ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY, 2024, 26 (09) : 22473 - 22498
  • [38] The Effects of Short-Selling Threats on Incentive Contracts: Evidence from an Experiment
    De Angelis, David
    Grullon, Gustavo
    Michenaud, Sebastien
    REVIEW OF FINANCIAL STUDIES, 2017, 30 (05): : 1627 - 1659
  • [39] Moral Hazard, Incentive Contracts, and Risk: Evidence from Procurement
    Lewis, Gregory
    Bajari, Patrick
    REVIEW OF ECONOMIC STUDIES, 2014, 81 (03): : 1201 - 1228
  • [40] Conservation Auctions and Compliance: Theory and Evidence from Laboratory Experiments
    Kawasaki, Kentaro
    Fujie, Takeshi
    Koito, Kentaro
    Inoue, Norikazu
    Sasaki, Hiroki
    ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2012, 52 (02): : 157 - 179