Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 23, Issue 8, pp 2033–2052 | Cite as

Practitioner versus participant perspectives on conservation tenders

  • Louise Blackmore
  • Graeme Doole
  • Steven Schilizzi
Original Paper


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.


Biodiversity conservation Conservation tender Landholder characteristics Program characteristics Transaction costs Agency–landholder interactions 



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.


  1. Black MA (2004) A note on the adaptive control of false discovery rates. J R Stat Soc B 66:297–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blackmore L, Doole GJ (2013) Drivers of landholder participation in tender programs for Australian biodiversity conservation. Environ Sci Policy 33:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bryman A (2012) Social research methods, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. 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, PerthGoogle Scholar
  5. Connor JD, Ward JR, Bryan B (2008) Exploring the cost effectiveness of land conservation auctions and payment policies. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 52:303–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doole GJ, Blackmore L, Schilizzi S (2014) Determinants of cost-effectiveness in tender and offset programmes for Australian biodiversity conservation. Land Use Policy 36:23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DSE (2006) BushTender—the landholder perspective. Department of Sustainability and Environment, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  8. Duffy B, Smith K, Terhanian G, Bremer J (2005) Comparing data from online and face-to-face surveys. Int J Mark Res 47:615–639Google Scholar
  9. Efron B, Tibshirani R (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 8:17–37Google Scholar
  12. Grafton RQ (2005) Evaluation of round one of the market based instrument pilot program. Report to the National MBI Working GroupGoogle Scholar
  13. Heerwegh D, Loosveldt G (2008) Face-to-face versus web surveying in a high-internet-coverage population: differences in response quality. Public Opin Quart 72:836–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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, PerthGoogle Scholar
  15. Latacz-Lohmann U, Van der Hamsvoort C (1997) Auctioning conservation contracts: a theoretical analysis and an application. Am J Agric Econ 79:407–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Massopust P (2009) Interpolation and approximation with splines and fractals. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. McCann L, Colby B, Easter KW, Kasterine A, Kuperan KV (2005) Transaction cost measurement for evaluating environmental policies. Ecol Econ 52:527–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. MJA (2010) Review of the environmental stewardship program: a report prepared for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Marsden Jacob Associates, CamberwellGoogle Scholar
  19. Moon K, Marshall N, Cocklin C (2012) Personal circumstances and social characteristics as determinants of landholder participation in biodiversity conservation programs. J Environ Manag 113:292–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Morris C (2004) Networks of agri-environmental policy implementation: a case study of England’s Countryside Stewardship Scheme. Land Use Policy 21:177–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Morrison M, Durante J, Greig J, Ward J (2008) Encouraging participation in market based instruments and incentive programs. Land and Water Australia, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 70:1837–1845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 46:1407–1424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Parkes D, Newell G, Cheal D (2003) Assessing the quality of native vegetation: the ‘habitat hectares’ approach. Ecol Manag Restor 4:S29–S38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 70:1621–1627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ribaudo MO, Hoag DL, Smith ME, Heimlich R (2001) Environmental indices and the politics of the Conservation Reserve Program. Ecol Ind 1:11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rogers E (2003) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Sheskin DJ (2003) Handbook of parametric and non-parametric statistical procedures. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sirkin MR (2005) Statistics for the social sciences. SAGE Publishing, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  30. Snow J (2011) The complete research suite: a step-by-step guide to using Qualtrics. Qualtrics, ProvoGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 47:477–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Storey JD (2003) The positive false discovery rate: a Bayesian interpretation and the q-value. Ann Stat 31:2013–2035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 66:187–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Verhoeven KJF, Simonsen KL, McIntyre LM (2005) Implementing false discovery rate control: increasing your power. Oikos 108:643–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Whitten S, Reeson A, Windle J, Rolfe J (2007) Barriers to and opportunities for increasing participation in conservation auctions. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, CampbellGoogle Scholar
  36. Williamson OE (1985) The economic institutions of capitalism: firms, markets relational contracting. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 25:388–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Windle J, Rolfe J, Kunde T (2007) East gympie dairy tender participation evaluation survey report. Central Queensland University, RockhamptonGoogle Scholar
  39. Windle J, Rolfe J, McCosker J, Lingard A (2009) A conservation auction for landscape linkage in the southern Desert Uplands, Queensland. Rangel J 31:127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zammit C (2013) Landowners and conservation markets: social benefits from two Australian government programs. Land Use Policy 31:11–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louise Blackmore
    • 1
  • Graeme Doole
    • 1
    • 2
  • Steven Schilizzi
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural SciencesUniversity of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Economics, Waikato Management SchoolUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations