设计碳补偿市场:马拉维的一项实地试验

B. K. Jack
{"title":"设计碳补偿市场:马拉维的一项实地试验","authors":"B. K. Jack","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1638563","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Revealing private information to improve allocation and pricing in carbon offset projects can help improve the competitiveness of developing country offsets on global carbon markets. This study provides the first evidence from a developing country to directly compare alternative allocation mechanisms: a uniform-price, sealed bid procurement auction and a posted offer market. The field experiment was conducted in Malawi for the allocation of tree planting contracts. Results reveal highly divergent outcomes for the two strategically equivalent mechanisms. The auction set the clearing price for both mechanisms and enrolled the 38 percent of the auction treatment group that bid below the price. In the posted offer treatment group, 99.5 percent of participants accepted the contract at the auction clearing price. Compliance results show significantly more trees surviving per contract allocated under the auction. At the clearing price, the auction achieves a better selection of high compliance landholders, but potentially at greater cost than the posted offer market. Results confirm the presence of information asymmetries in these markets and demonstrate that project design affects both the cost effectiveness and the environmental effectiveness of carbon offset projects.","PeriodicalId":237010,"journal":{"name":"SRPN: Carbon Trading (Politics) (Topic)","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Designing Markets for Carbon Offsets: A Field Experiment in Malawi\",\"authors\":\"B. K. Jack\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1638563\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Revealing private information to improve allocation and pricing in carbon offset projects can help improve the competitiveness of developing country offsets on global carbon markets. This study provides the first evidence from a developing country to directly compare alternative allocation mechanisms: a uniform-price, sealed bid procurement auction and a posted offer market. The field experiment was conducted in Malawi for the allocation of tree planting contracts. Results reveal highly divergent outcomes for the two strategically equivalent mechanisms. The auction set the clearing price for both mechanisms and enrolled the 38 percent of the auction treatment group that bid below the price. In the posted offer treatment group, 99.5 percent of participants accepted the contract at the auction clearing price. Compliance results show significantly more trees surviving per contract allocated under the auction. At the clearing price, the auction achieves a better selection of high compliance landholders, but potentially at greater cost than the posted offer market. Results confirm the presence of information asymmetries in these markets and demonstrate that project design affects both the cost effectiveness and the environmental effectiveness of carbon offset projects.\",\"PeriodicalId\":237010,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SRPN: Carbon Trading (Politics) (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-01-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SRPN: Carbon Trading (Politics) (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1638563\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SRPN: Carbon Trading (Politics) (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1638563","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

披露私人信息以改善碳补偿项目的分配和定价,有助于提高发展中国家碳补偿在全球碳市场上的竞争力。这项研究提供了第一个来自发展中国家的证据,可以直接比较不同的分配机制:统一价格、密封投标采购拍卖和公开报价市场。为分配植树合同,在马拉维进行了实地试验。结果显示,两种战略等效机制的结果大相径庭。拍卖为这两种机制设定了结算价格,并招募了38%出价低于价格的拍卖治疗组。在发布报价处理组中,99.5%的参与者接受了拍卖结算价格的合同。符合性结果显示,在拍卖下分配的每个合同中幸存的树木明显更多。在结算价格下,拍卖可以更好地选择高度合规的土地持有人,但成本可能高于公开出价市场。研究结果证实了这些市场中信息不对称的存在,并表明项目设计同时影响碳抵消项目的成本效益和环境效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Designing Markets for Carbon Offsets: A Field Experiment in Malawi
Revealing private information to improve allocation and pricing in carbon offset projects can help improve the competitiveness of developing country offsets on global carbon markets. This study provides the first evidence from a developing country to directly compare alternative allocation mechanisms: a uniform-price, sealed bid procurement auction and a posted offer market. The field experiment was conducted in Malawi for the allocation of tree planting contracts. Results reveal highly divergent outcomes for the two strategically equivalent mechanisms. The auction set the clearing price for both mechanisms and enrolled the 38 percent of the auction treatment group that bid below the price. In the posted offer treatment group, 99.5 percent of participants accepted the contract at the auction clearing price. Compliance results show significantly more trees surviving per contract allocated under the auction. At the clearing price, the auction achieves a better selection of high compliance landholders, but potentially at greater cost than the posted offer market. Results confirm the presence of information asymmetries in these markets and demonstrate that project design affects both the cost effectiveness and the environmental effectiveness of carbon offset projects.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信