@article{Edwards:100545,
      recid = {100545},
      author = {Edwards, Claire and Eigenraam, Mark},
      title = {An empirical examination of the gains in  cost-effectiveness from the use of multiple environmental  outcome conservation tenders},
      address = {2011},
      number = {422-2016-26900},
      pages = {21},
      year = {2011},
      abstract = {The production and consumption of environmental goods and  services are subject to many of the problems  associated
with public goods. Due to their non-rival and  non-excludable nature, incentives for individuals to invest  in their production
are often absent. To address this  market failure, government agencies have used a number of  policy mechanisms to
procure the supply of environmental  outcomes on behalf of society. Recently, conservation  tenders focussing on private
land have been a favoured  policy instrument used by many government agencies to  purchase environmental outcomes in
the public interest. The  majority of these environmental tenders have focussed on a  single environmental outcome.
It is contended in this paper  that multiple environmental outcomes tenders can be more  cost-effective than single
outcome tenders as decisions are  based on information regarding a wider set of environmental  outcomes – a more
complete picture. Tenders that focus on  more than one outcome capitalise on economies of scope in  the production of
environmental outcomes, as well as  incorporating synergies and trade-offs into decision  making.
In this paper the results from a synthetic analysis  of the benefits derived from running multiple-outcome  tenders are
compared to single outcome tenders, to  empirically estimate potential cost-effectiveness gains.  The baseline policy of
running a multiple-outcome tender is  compared to three alternative policy options: running a  single outcome tender,
running three single outcome tenders  simultaneously, and running three single outcome tenders  consecutively.
Results indicate that significant cost  effectiveness gains can be made by running a  multiple-outcome tender compared to
the three policy  alternatives. These results are analysed, and advantages  and limitations of applying multiple-outcome
tenders in the  field are discussed.},
      url = {http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/100545},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.100545},
}