Author:
Siang Ch’ng Kean,Leng Khoo Suet,Mui Lim Yoke
Abstract
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate the cost effectiveness of the existing conservation grant disbursement mechanism in George Town, Penang. It reports the effect of disclosure of conservation preferences by the conservation agency on the conservation cost.Design/methodology/approachA test bed laboratory experiment is reported on, in which house owners competed in a sealed bid auction to obtain conservation subsidies/grants. In one treatment, owners knew the preference of, or priority given by, the regulator to certain types of conservation efforts, whereas in the second treatment, the regulator concealed this priority.FindingsThe results showed that owners tailored their applications to the given priority rather than to the true conservation costs in the preference‐known treatment group. Although the selected conservation works did not differ significantly between the two treatments, owners misrepresented their true conservation costs.Research limitations/implicationsGiven the lack of consensus of the tool to measure ex post conservation value, the study relies on conservation efforts/works to disburse subsidy/grant. Allocative efficiency can be enhanced if this information is available.Practical implicationsThe presented results suggested that concealing priority information could be used to improve the cost‐efficiency of existing disbursement policy.Originality/valueDrawing from the problems of asymmetry information between house owners and conservation agency, the study provided evidence in support of the idea that disbursement of conservation fund was based on the conservation efforts/inputs. In terms of costs, not disclosing the preferences information could encourage competition and reduced conservation costs.
Subject
Urban Studies,General Business, Management and Accounting,Geography, Planning and Development,Conservation
Reference35 articles.
1. Cason, T.N. and Gangadharan, L. (2004), “Auction design for voluntary conservation programs”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 86 No. 5, pp. 1211‐1217.
2. Cason, T.N. and Gangadharan, L. (2005), “A laboratory comparison of uniform and discriminative price auction for point source pollution”, Land Economics, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 51‐70.
3. Cason, T.N., Gangadharan, L. and Duke, C. (2003), “A laboratory study of auctions for reducing non‐profit source pollution”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 446‐471.
4. Chai, L.E., Fang, H.L. and Selamat, N. (2006), The Reflection of Policy on the Growth in George Town, unpublished research monograph, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang.
5. Chan, C., Laplagne, P. and Appels, D. (2003), “The role of auctions in allocating public resources”, Productivity Commission Staff Research Paper, Melbourne, ISBN 1 74037 104 4.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Wedding cultural heritage and sustainable development: three years after;Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development;2014-05-13