Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Practitioner versus participant perspectives on conservation tenders

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Extensive clearing of native vegetation on rural properties throughout Australia over the last century has generated significant damage to biodiversity. Conservation tenders have been broadly used to reduce the detrimental impact of such widespread clearance. To date, Australian conservation tender research has largely been limited to program evaluations and landholder surveys. This analysis differs by comparing and contrasting the views of non-landholders involved with these programs with those of participant landholders. The non-landholder group consists of individuals with involvement in conservation tenders across Australia. By contrast, the landholder group consists of individuals with participation experience in a series of Victorian tender initiatives. Each group is surveyed to investigate the drivers of cost-effectiveness within tender programs and landholder participation. This analysis explores these two perspectives, revealing important convergences and divergences in opinion. Both practitioners and landholders indicate that programs supported by close agency–landholder relationships and offering flexibility to landholders are most likely to succeed, particularly where landholders perceive the tender instrument to be fair. Whilst practitioners emphasise the role of transaction costs issues and program characteristics in achieving cost-effective biodiversity outcomes, landholders indicate that these factors are less important to participation rates. This research is important to guide future implementation of tender programs both in Australia and internationally.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Note that alternatives to this “discriminatory pricing” format are possible, e.g. “uniform pricing” where all successful participants receive the bid amount nominated by the marginal winner or loser (e.g. Latacz-Lohmann and Schilizzi 2005).

  2. In CT, landholders are thought to inflate their bids somewhat in practice, but it is generally accepted that tender schemes are a more cost-effective alternative to flat-rate grant programs (e.g. Connor et al. 2008; Stoneham et al. 2003).

  3. In total, 49 functional responses were received from approximately 120 potential respondents. Further detail regarding the design and implementation of the NLH survey can be found in Doole et al. (2014). The survey instrument can be made available to interested parties upon request.

  4. Further detail regarding the design and implementation of the LH survey can be found in Blackmore and Doole (2013). The survey instrument can also be made available to interested parties upon request.

References

  • Black MA (2004) A note on the adaptive control of false discovery rates. J R Stat Soc B 66:297–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackmore L, Doole GJ (2013) Drivers of landholder participation in tender programs for Australian biodiversity conservation. Environ Sci Policy 33:143–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman A (2012) Social research methods, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Clayton H (2011) The crowding-out of public good conservation effort: an application to market-based biodiversity conservation policy in Australia, agricultural and resource economics. University of Western Australia, Perth

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor JD, Ward JR, Bryan B (2008) Exploring the cost effectiveness of land conservation auctions and payment policies. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 52:303–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doole GJ, Blackmore L, Schilizzi S (2014) Determinants of cost-effectiveness in tender and offset programmes for Australian biodiversity conservation. Land Use Policy 36:23–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DSE (2006) BushTender—the landholder perspective. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy B, Smith K, Terhanian G, Bremer J (2005) Comparing data from online and face-to-face surveys. Int J Mark Res 47:615–639

    Google Scholar 

  • Efron B, Tibshirani R (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eigenraam M, Strappazzon L, Lansdell N, Ha A, Beverly C, Todd J (2006) EcoTender: Auction for multiple environmental outcomes—project final report. Department of Primary Industries, Victoria

    Google Scholar 

  • Goktas A, Oznur I (2011) A comparison of the most commonly used measures of association for doubly ordered square contingency tables via simulation. Metodoloski zvezki 8:17–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafton RQ (2005) Evaluation of round one of the market based instrument pilot program. Report to the National MBI Working Group

  • Heerwegh D, Loosveldt G (2008) Face-to-face versus web surveying in a high-internet-coverage population: differences in response quality. Public Opin Quart 72:836–846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latacz-Lohmann U, Schilizzi S (2005) Auctions for conservation contracts: a review of the theoretical and empirical literature. Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department, Perth

    Google Scholar 

  • Latacz-Lohmann U, Van der Hamsvoort C (1997) Auctioning conservation contracts: a theoretical analysis and an application. Am J Agric Econ 79:407–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massopust P (2009) Interpolation and approximation with splines and fractals. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • McCann L, Colby B, Easter KW, Kasterine A, Kuperan KV (2005) Transaction cost measurement for evaluating environmental policies. Ecol Econ 52:527–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MJA (2010) Review of the environmental stewardship program: a report prepared for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Marsden Jacob Associates, Camberwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon K, Marshall N, Cocklin C (2012) Personal circumstances and social characteristics as determinants of landholder participation in biodiversity conservation programs. J Environ Manag 113:292–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris C (2004) Networks of agri-environmental policy implementation: a case study of England’s Countryside Stewardship Scheme. Land Use Policy 21:177–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison M, Durante J, Greig J, Ward J (2008) Encouraging participation in market based instruments and incentive programs. Land and Water Australia, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Narloch U, Drucker AG, Pascual U (2011) Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services for sustained on-farm utilization of plant and animal genetic resources. Ecol Econ 70:1837–1845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pannell DJ, Marshall GR, Barr N, Curtis A, Vanclay F, Wilkinson R (2006) Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Aust J Exp Agric 46:1407–1424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkes D, Newell G, Cheal D (2003) Assessing the quality of native vegetation: the ‘habitat hectares’ approach. Ecol Manag Restor 4:S29–S38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeson AF, Rodriguez LC, Whitten SM, Williams K, Nolles K, Windle J, Rolfe J (2011) Adapting auctions for the provision of ecosystem services at the landscape scale. Ecol Econ 70:1621–1627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribaudo MO, Hoag DL, Smith ME, Heimlich R (2001) Environmental indices and the politics of the Conservation Reserve Program. Ecol Ind 1:11–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers E (2003) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheskin DJ (2003) Handbook of parametric and non-parametric statistical procedures. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sirkin MR (2005) Statistics for the social sciences. SAGE Publishing, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow J (2011) The complete research suite: a step-by-step guide to using Qualtrics. Qualtrics, Provo

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoneham G, Chaudhri V, Ha A, Strappazzon L (2003) Auctions for conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria’s BushTender trial. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 47:477–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storey JD (2003) The positive false discovery rate: a Bayesian interpretation and the q-value. Ann Stat 31:2013–2035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storey JD, Taylor JE, Siegmund D (2004) Strong control, conservative point estimation and simultaneous conservative consistency of false discovery rates: a unified approach. J R Stat Soc B 66:187–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoeven KJF, Simonsen KL, McIntyre LM (2005) Implementing false discovery rate control: increasing your power. Oikos 108:643–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitten S, Reeson A, Windle J, Rolfe J (2007) Barriers to and opportunities for increasing participation in conservation auctions. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Campbell

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson OE (1985) The economic institutions of capitalism: firms, markets relational contracting. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Windle J, Rolfe J (2008) Exploring the efficiencies of using competitive tenders over fixed price grants to protect biodiversity in Australian rangelands. Land Use Policy 25:388–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windle J, Rolfe J, Kunde T (2007) East gympie dairy tender participation evaluation survey report. Central Queensland University, Rockhampton

    Google Scholar 

  • Windle J, Rolfe J, McCosker J, Lingard A (2009) A conservation auction for landscape linkage in the southern Desert Uplands, Queensland. Rangel J 31:127–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zammit C (2013) Landowners and conservation markets: social benefits from two Australian government programs. Land Use Policy 31:11–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was conducted with the support of funding from the Australian Government’s National Environmental Research Program. The authors thank all participants involved in this research, especially Michael Burton, Helena Clayton, David Pannell, Geoff Park and Anna Roberts. The authors would also like to recognise the valuable contribution of two anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia

    Louise Blackmore, Graeme Doole & Steven Schilizzi

  2. Department of Economics, Waikato Management School, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand

    Graeme Doole

Authors
  1. Louise Blackmore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Graeme Doole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steven Schilizzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Louise Blackmore.

Additional information

Communicated by David Westcott.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blackmore, L., Doole, G. & Schilizzi, S. Practitioner versus participant perspectives on conservation tenders. Biodivers Conserv 23, 2033–2052 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0702-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0702-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation