IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v126y2016icp125-131.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public willingness to pay for carbon farming and its co-benefits

Author

Listed:
  • Kragt, M.E.
  • Gibson, F.L.
  • Maseyk, F.
  • Wilson, K.A.

Abstract

Governments worldwide have implemented climate change mitigation policies that aim to encourage abatement by changing agricultural practices. In Australia, farmers can gain carbon credits for sequestering carbon or reducing emissions. In addition to mitigation, these ‘carbon farming’ activities often generate ancillary (co-)benefits, such as creating native habitat or preventing erosion. This paper presents results of an Australia-wide choice experiment, conducted to estimate community values for climate change mitigation and the cobenefits of carbon farming. Values for carbon farming benefits are shown to depend on respondent's opinions about climate change. Respondents who do not believe that climate change is happening have a lower willingness to pay for reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions than people who believe climate change is (at least partly) caused by human actions. On average, respondents were willing to pay $1.13/Mt of CO2-e reduction. Respondents were willing to pay around $19/ha increase in the area of native vegetation on farmland. Value estimates for reducing soil erosion were not significant. Our results demonstrate that the community benefits from carbon farming extend beyond their effects on climate change mitigation. Future policies should take these positive values for cobenefits into account.

Suggested Citation

  • Kragt, M.E. & Gibson, F.L. & Maseyk, F. & Wilson, K.A., 2016. "Public willingness to pay for carbon farming and its co-benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 125-131.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:126:y:2016:i:c:p:125-131
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.02.018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800916302300
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.02.018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kragt, Marit E. & Pannell, David J. & Robertson, Michael J. & Thamo, Tas, 2012. "Assessing costs of soil carbon sequestration by crop-livestock farmers in Western Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 27-37.
    2. Qiang Zhai & Huajun Cao & Xiang Zhao & Chris Yuan, 2011. "Cost Benefit Analysis of Using Clean Energy Supplies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Global Automotive Manufacturing," Energies, MDPI, vol. 4(10), pages 1-17, September.
    3. Wicker, Pamela & Becken, Susanne, 2013. "Conscientious vs. ambivalent consumers: Do concerns about energy availability and climate change influence consumer behaviour?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 41-48.
    4. Ian Bateman & Amii Harwood & David Abson & Barnaby Andrews & Andrew Crowe & Steve Dugdale & Carlo Fezzi & Jo Foden & David Hadley & Roy Haines-Young & Mark Hulme & Andreas Kontoleon & Paul Munday & Un, 2014. "Economic Analysis for the UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis and Scenario Valuation of Changes in Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(2), pages 273-297, February.
    5. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A. & Rose, John, 2006. "Accounting for heterogeneity in the variance of unobserved effects in mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 75-92, January.
    6. Kragt, M.E. & Gibson, F.L. & Maseyk, F. & Wilson, K.A., 2016. "Public willingness to pay for carbon farming and its co-benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 125-131.
    7. Dumbrell, Nikki P. & Kragt, Marit E. & Biggs, Jody & Meier, Elizabeth & Thorburn, Peter, 2015. "Climate change abatement and farm profitability analyses across agricultural environments," Working Papers 225674, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    8. Dale, Virginia H. & Polasky, Stephen, 2007. "Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 286-296, December.
    9. Daziano, Ricardo A. & Achtnicht, Martin, 2014. "Accounting for uncertainty in willingness to pay for environmental benefits," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 166-177.
    10. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    11. Jacob Phelps & Edward L. Webb & William M. Adams, 2012. "Biodiversity co-benefits of policies to reduce forest-carbon emissions," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(7), pages 497-503, July.
    12. Alberto Longo & David Hoyos & Anil Markandya, 2012. "Willingness to Pay for Ancillary Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 119-140, January.
    13. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Leiserowitz, Anthony A., 2013. "Willingness-to-pay and policy-instrument choice for climate-change policy in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 617-625.
    14. Phalan, Ben & Balmford, Andrew & Green, Rhys E. & Scharlemann, Jörn P.W., 2011. "Minimising the harm to biodiversity of producing more food globally," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(Supplemen), pages 62-71, January.
    15. Duke, Joshua M. & Borchers, Allison M. & Johnston, Robert J. & Absetz, Sarah, 2012. "Sustainable agricultural management contracts: Using choice experiments to estimate the benefits of land preservation and conservation practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 95-103.
    16. Phalan, Ben & Balmford, Andrew & Green, Rhys E. & Scharlemann, Jörn P.W., 2011. "Minimising the harm to biodiversity of producing more food globally," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(S1), pages 62-71.
    17. Riccardo Scarpa & Kenneth G. Willis & Melinda Acutt, 2007. "Valuing externalities from water supply: Status quo, choice complexity and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 449-466.
    18. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    19. MacKerron, George J. & Egerton, Catrin & Gaskell, Christopher & Parpia, Aimie & Mourato, Susana, 2009. "Willingness to pay for carbon offset certification and co-benefits among (high-)flying young adults in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1372-1381, April.
    20. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim D. & Rose, John M. & Palma, João H.N. & Harrison, Duncan R., 2014. "Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 90-101.
    21. Elbakidze, Levan & McCarl, Bruce A., 2007. "Sequestration offsets versus direct emission reductions: Consideration of environmental co-effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 564-571, January.
    22. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wolfgang Buchholz & Dirk Rübbelke, 2020. "Overstraining International Climate Finance: When Conflicts of Objectives Threaten Its Succes," Working Papers 2020.17, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    2. Wonjae Hwang & Minseok Park & Kijong Cho & Jeong-Gyu Kim & Seunghun Hyun, 2019. "Mitigation of CO 2 and N 2 O Emission from Cabbage Fields in Korea by Optimizing Tillage Depth and N-Fertilizer Level: DNDC Model Simulation under RCP 8.5 Scenario," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-13, November.
    3. Tina L. Saitone & Richard J. Sexton, 2017. "Agri-food supply chain: evolution and performance with conflicting consumer and societal demands," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 634-657.
    4. Otte, Pia Piroschka & Vik, Jostein, 2017. "Biochar systems: Developing a socio-technical system framework for biochar production in Norway," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 34-45.
    5. Kragt, M.E. & Gibson, F.L. & Maseyk, F. & Wilson, K.A., 2016. "Public willingness to pay for carbon farming and its co-benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 125-131.
    6. Valentina Kashintseva & Wadim Strielkowski & Justas Streimikis & Tatiana Veynbender, 2018. "Consumer Attitudes towards Industrial CO 2 Capture and Storage Products and Technologies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, October.
    7. Cristiano Franceschinis & Ulf Liebe & Mara Thiene & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Damien Field & Alex McBratney, 2022. "The effect of social and personal norms on stated preferences for multiple soil functions: evidence from Australia and Italy," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(2), pages 335-362, April.
    8. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Baum, Chad M. & Low, Sean, 2023. "Beyond climate stabilization: Exploring the perceived sociotechnical co-impacts of carbon removal and solar geoengineering," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    9. Shannan K. Sweet & Jonathon P. Schuldt & Johannes Lehmann & Deborah A. Bossio & Dominic Woolf, 2021. "Perceptions of naturalness predict US public support for Soil Carbon Storage as a climate solution," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 1-15, May.
    10. Abbie A. Rogers & Fiona L. Dempster & Jacob I. Hawkins & Robert J. Johnston & Peter C. Boxall & John Rolfe & Marit E. Kragt & Michael P. Burton & David J. Pannell, 2019. "Valuing non-market economic impacts from natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 99(2), pages 1131-1161, November.
    11. Birkenberg, A., 2018. "Carbon neutral global value chains: demand or desire? - Consumers willingness to pay for a carbon neutrality label on specialty coffee in Germany," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277277, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Baumber, Alex & Metternicht, Graciela & Cross, Rebecca & Ruoso, Laure-Elise & Cowie, Annette L. & Waters, Cathleen, 2019. "Promoting co-benefits of carbon farming in Oceania: Applying and adapting approaches and metrics from existing market-based schemes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    13. Liuyang Yao & Minjuan Zhao & Yu Cai & Zhaowei Yin, 2018. "Public Preferences for the Design of a Farmland Retirement Project: Using Choice Experiments in Urban and Rural Areas of Wuwei, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, May.
    14. Lokuge, Nimanthika & Anders, Sven, 2022. "Carbon-Credit Systems in Agriculture: A Review of Literature," SPP Technical Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 15(12), April.
    15. Mst Asma Khatun & Shibly Shahrier & Koji Kotani, 2020. "Cooperation and cognition gaps for salinity: A field experiment of information provision," Working Papers SDES-2020-4, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Jun 2020.
    16. Galina Williams, 2023. "Temporal Stability of Attitudes towards Climate Change and Willingness to Pay for the Emissions Reduction Options in Queensland, Australia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-22, May.
    17. Qinpeng Wang & Longfei He & Daozhi Zhao & Michele Lundy, 2018. "Diverse Schemes of Cost Pooling for Carbon-Reduction Outsourcing in Low-Carbon Supply Chains," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, November.
    18. Luisa Fernanda Eusse-Villa & Cristiano Franceschinis & Mara Thiene & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Alex McBratney & Damien Field, 2021. "Attitudes and Preferences towards Soil-Based Ecosystem Services: How Do They Vary across Space?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-19, August.
    19. Per Espen Stoknes & Olav B. Soldal & Sissel Hansen & Ingvar Kvande & Sylvia Weddegjerde Skjelderup, 2021. "Willingness to Pay for Crowdfunding Local Agricultural Climate Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-16, August.
    20. Johannes Dahlin & Verena Halbherr & Peter Kurz & Michael Nelles & Carsten Herbes, 2016. "Marketing Green Fertilizers: Insights into Consumer Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-15, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jens Abildtrup & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Suzanne Elizabeth Vedel & Udo Mantau & Robert Mavsar & Davide Pettenella & Irina Prokofieva & Florian Schubert & Anne Stenger & Elsa Varela & Enrico Vidale & , 2023. "Preferences for climate change policies: the role of co-benefits," Post-Print hal-04132398, HAL.
    2. Kragt, Marit Ellen & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2011. "Using choice experiments to value catchment and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(2), pages 1-21.
    3. Marit Kragt & Jeffrey Bennett, 2012. "Attribute Framing in Choice Experiments: How Do Attribute Level Descriptions Affect Value Estimates?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 43-59, January.
    4. Balderas Torres, Arturo & MacMillan, Douglas C. & Skutsch, Margaret & Lovett, Jon C., 2015. "Reprint of ‘Yes-in-my-backyard’: Spatial differences in the valuation of forest services and local co-benefits for carbon markets in México," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 283-294.
    5. Balderas Torres, Arturo & MacMillan, Douglas C. & Skutsch, Margaret & Lovett, Jon C., 2015. "‘Yes-in-my-backyard’: Spatial differences in the valuation of forest services and local co-benefits for carbon markets in México," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 130-141.
    6. Robert Gillespie & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Willingness to pay for kerbside recycling the Brisbane Region," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1097, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    7. Campbell, Danny & Hutchinson, W. George & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2006. "Lexicographic Preferences in Discrete Choice Experiments: Consequences on Individual-Specific Willingness to Pay Estimates," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12224, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    8. Alejandra R. Enríquez & Angel Bujosa Bestard, 2020. "Measuring the economic impact of climate-induced environmental changes on sun-and-beach tourism," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 203-217, May.
    9. Lea Skræp Svenningsen, 2017. "Distributive outcomes matter: Measuring social preferences for climate policy," IFRO Working Paper 2017/11, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    10. Blackman, Allen & Dissanayake, Sahan & Martinez Cruz, Adan & Corral, Leonardo & Schling, Maja, 2022. "Benefits of Titling Indigenous Communities in the Peruvian Amazon: A Stated Preference Approach," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 12633, Inter-American Development Bank.
    11. Kragt, Marit Ellen, 2013. "Comparing models of unobserved heterogeneity in environmental choice experiments," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152198, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    12. Cheung, Jimmy & Kragt, Marit & Burton, Michael, 2015. "The awareness and willingness of air travellers to pay for voluntary carbon offsets and their co-benefits," Working Papers 199231, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    13. Rodríguez-Entrena, Macario & Espinosa-Goded, María & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús, 2014. "The role of ancillary benefits on the value of agricultural soils carbon sequestration programmes: Evidence from a latent class approach to Andalusian olive groves," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 63-73.
    14. Crastes, Romain & Beaumais, Olivier & Arkoun, Ouerdia & Laroutis, Dimitri & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Rulleau, Bénédicte & Hassani-Taibi, Salima & Barbu, Vladimir Stefan & Gaillard, David, 2014. "Erosive runoff events in the European Union: Using discrete choice experiment to assess the benefits of integrated management policies when preferences are heterogeneous," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 105-112.
    15. Per Espen Stoknes & Olav B. Soldal & Sissel Hansen & Ingvar Kvande & Sylvia Weddegjerde Skjelderup, 2021. "Willingness to Pay for Crowdfunding Local Agricultural Climate Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-16, August.
    16. Gillespie Rob & Kragt Marit E., 2012. "Accounting for Nonmarket Impacts in a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Underground Coal Mining in New South Wales, Australia," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-29, May.
    17. Zack Dorner & Daniel A. Brent & Anke Leroux, 2019. "Preferences for Intrinsically Risky Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 95(4), pages 494-514.
    18. Wan Norhidayah W Mohamad & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2019. "The Status Quo In Discrete Choice Experiments: Is It Relevant?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 507-532, March.
    19. Westerberg, Vanja Holmquist & Lifran, Robert & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2010. "To restore or not? A valuation of social and ecological functions of the Marais des Baux wetland in Southern France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2383-2393, October.
    20. Alberini, Anna & Ščasný, Milan & Bigano, Andrea, 2018. "Policy- v. individual heterogeneity in the benefits of climate change mitigation: Evidence from a stated-preference survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 565-575.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:126:y:2016:i:c:p:125-131. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.