IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0201967.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Small-scale forestry and carbon offset markets: An empirical study of Vermont Current Use forest landowner willingness to accept carbon credit programs

Author

Listed:
  • Alisa E White
  • David A Lutz
  • Richard B Howarth
  • José R Soto

Abstract

This study investigates the preferences of small forest landowners regarding forest carbon credit programs while documenting characteristics of potentially successful frameworks. We designed hypothetical carbon credit programs with aggregated carbon offset projects and requirements of existing voluntary and compliance protocols in mind. We administered a mail survey to 992 forest landowners in Vermont’s Current Use Program utilizing best-worst choice, a novel preference elicitation technique, to elicit their preferences about these programs. We found that small forest landowners see revenue as the most important factor in a carbon credit program and the duration of the program as the least important factor. Landowners reported that shorter program duration, higher revenue, and lower withdrawal penalties positively impact their willingness to accept forest carbon credit programs. Notably, our study includes carbon credit program implementer as a key program attribute, allowing us to quantify landowners’ tradeoffs between non-profit, for-profit, and government organizations. Overall, we found that landowners significantly prefer working with a non-profit organization. Based on monetary estimates of willingness-to-accept compensation, our results suggest that aggregated forest carbon offset projects incorporating small forest landowners could be piloted successfully in Vermont by non-profit organizations while maintaining relatively strict guidelines of existing carbon offset protocols.

Suggested Citation

  • Alisa E White & David A Lutz & Richard B Howarth & José R Soto, 2018. "Small-scale forestry and carbon offset markets: An empirical study of Vermont Current Use forest landowner willingness to accept carbon credit programs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-24, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0201967
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201967
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201967
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201967&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0201967?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Janota, Jessica J. & Broussard, Shorna R., 2008. "Examining private forest policy preferences," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 89-97, January.
    2. Flynn, Terry N. & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2007. "Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 171-189, January.
    3. Loureiro, Maria L. & Dominguez Arcos, Fernando, 2012. "Applying Best–Worst Scaling in a stated preference analysis of forest management programs," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 381-394.
    4. Vithala R. Rao, 2014. "Applied Conjoint Analysis," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-540-87753-0, November.
    5. Miller, Kristell A. & Snyder, Stephanie A. & Kilgore, Michael A., 2012. "An assessment of forest landowner interest in selling forest carbon credits in the Lake States, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 113-122.
    6. Soto, José R. & Adams, Damian C. & Escobedo, Francisco J., 2016. "Landowner attitudes and willingness to accept compensation from forest carbon offsets: Application of best–worst choice modeling in Florida USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 35-42.
    7. Håbesland, Daniel E. & Kilgore, Michael A. & Becker, Dennis R. & Snyder, Stephanie A. & Solberg, Birger & Sjølie, Hanne K. & Lindstad, Berit H., 2016. "Norwegian family forest owners' willingness to participate in carbon offset programs," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 30-38.
    8. Kerchner, Charles D. & Keeton, William S., 2015. "California's regulatory forest carbon market: Viability for northeast landowners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 70-81.
    9. Marissa Bongiovanni Schmitz & Erin Clover Kelly, 2016. "Ecosystem Service Commodification: Lessons from California," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(4), pages 90-110, November.
    10. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    11. Dickinson, Brenton J. & Stevens, Thomas H. & Lindsay, Marla Markowski & Kittredge, David B., 2012. "Estimated participation in U.S. carbon sequestration programs: A study of NIPF landowners in Massachusetts," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 36-46.
    12. Greene,William H. & Hensher,David A., 2010. "Modeling Ordered Choices," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521142373.
    13. Greene,William H. & Hensher,David A., 2010. "Modeling Ordered Choices," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521194204.
    14. Markowski-Lindsay, Marla & Stevens, Thomas & Kittredge, David B. & Butler, Brett J. & Catanzaro, Paul & Dickinson, Brenton J., 2011. "Barriers to Massachusetts forest landowner participation in carbon markets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 180-190.
    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. Rui Sun & Dayi He & Jingjing Yan & Li Tao, 2021. "Mechanism Analysis of Applying Blockchain Technology to Forestry Carbon Sink Projects Based on the Differential Game Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Wang, Tong & Jin, Hailong & Clay, David E., 2023. "Factors affecting farmers’ willingness to accept for carbon farming in the U.S. Midwest," 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23-25, Washington D.C. 335876, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Graves, Rose A. & Nielsen-Pincus, Max & Haugo, Ryan D. & Holz, Andrés, 2022. "Forest carbon incentive programs for non-industrial private forests in Oregon (USA): Impacts of program design on willingness to enroll and landscape-scale program outcomes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).

    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. Graves, Rose A. & Nielsen-Pincus, Max & Haugo, Ryan D. & Holz, Andrés, 2022. "Forest carbon incentive programs for non-industrial private forests in Oregon (USA): Impacts of program design on willingness to enroll and landscape-scale program outcomes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    2. Khanal, Puskar N. & Grebner, Donald L. & Munn, Ian A. & Grado, Stephen C. & Grala, Robert K. & Henderson, James E., 2017. "Evaluating non-industrial private forest landowner willingness to manage for forest carbon sequestration in the southern United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 112-119.
    3. Soto, José R. & Adams, Damian C. & Escobedo, Francisco J., 2016. "Landowner attitudes and willingness to accept compensation from forest carbon offsets: Application of best–worst choice modeling in Florida USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 35-42.
    4. Kreye, Melissa M. & Adams, Damian C. & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Soto, José R., 2016. "Does policy process influence public values for forest-water resource protection in Florida?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 122-131.
    5. Ali Ardeshiri & Spring Sampson & Joffre Swait, 2019. "Seasonality Effects on Consumers Preferences Over Quality Attributes of Different Beef Products," Papers 1902.02419, arXiv.org.
    6. Macea, Luis F. & Cantillo, Victor & Arellana, Julian, 2018. "Influence of attitudes and perceptions on deprivation cost functions," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 125-141.
    7. Dias, Charitha & Abdullah, Muhammad & Lovreglio, Ruggiero & Sachchithanantham, Sumana & Rekatheeban, Markkandu & Sathyaprasad, I.M.S., 2022. "Exploring home-to-school trip mode choices in Kandy, Sri Lanka," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    8. Håbesland, Daniel E. & Kilgore, Michael A. & Becker, Dennis R. & Snyder, Stephanie A. & Solberg, Birger & Sjølie, Hanne K. & Lindstad, Berit H., 2016. "Norwegian family forest owners' willingness to participate in carbon offset programs," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 30-38.
    9. Dimitropoulos, Alexandros & Rietveld, Piet & van Ommeren, Jos N., 2013. "Consumer valuation of changes in driving range: A meta-analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 27-45.
    10. Daniela Covino & Flavio Boccia & Immacolata Viola, 2021. "Genetically modified and socially responsible foods: A significant relationship for consumer?s preferences," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(2), pages 371-383.
    11. Khanal, Puskar N. & Grebner, Donald L. & Straka, Thomas J. & Adams, Damian C., 2019. "Obstacles to participation in carbon sequestration for nonindustrial private forest landowners in the southern United States: A diffusion of innovations perspective," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 95-101.
    12. Lovreglio, Ruggiero & Fonzone, Achille & dell’Olio, Luigi, 2016. "A mixed logit model for predicting exit choice during building evacuations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 59-75.
    13. Alexandros Dimitropoulos & Piet Rietveld & Jos N. van Ommeren, 2011. "Consumer Valuation of Driving Range: A Meta-Analysis," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-133/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    14. David Throsby & Anita Zednik & Jorge E. Araña, 2021. "Public preferences for heritage conservation strategies: a choice modelling approach," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 45(3), pages 333-358, September.
    15. Shin Kinoshita, 2017. "Japanese Households Energy Saving Behaviors Toward Social Risks by Conjoint Analysis," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 7(6), pages 78-84.
    16. Bodo Herzog, 2018. "Valuation of Digital Platforms: Experimental Evidence for Google and Facebook," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-13, October.
    17. An, Wookhyun & Alarcón, Silverio, 2021. "Rural tourism preferences in Spain: Best-worst choices," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    18. Stefan Boes, 2013. "Nonparametric analysis of treatment effects in ordered response models," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 81-109, February.
    19. William H. Greene & Mark N. Harris & Rachel J. Knott & Nigel Rice, 2021. "Specification and testing of hierarchical ordered response models with anchoring vignettes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(1), pages 31-64, January.
    20. Hanna Dudek & Joanna Landmesser, 2012. "Income satisfaction and relative deprivation," Statistics in Transition new series, Główny Urząd Statystyczny (Polska), vol. 13(2), pages 321-334, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0201967. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.