IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v176y2023i9d10.1007_s10584-023-03588-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is there a generational shift in preferences for forest carbon sequestration vs. preservation of agricultural landscapes?

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaozi Liu

    (Institute of Marine Research)

  • Henrik Lindhjem

    (Menon Centre for Environmental and Resource Economics)

  • Kristine Grimsrud

    (Statistics Norway)

  • Einar Leknes

    (Norwegian Research Centre (NORCE))

  • Endre Tvinnereim

    (University of Bergen)

Abstract

Afforestation and reforestation are considered important measures for climate change mitigation. Because the land area available for tree planting may serve multiple purposes, striking the right balance between climate goals and other objectives is crucial. We conducted a survey of the Norwegian population to investigate potential land-use conflicts that may arise from executing a large-scale afforestation programme. Respondents were presented with three land-use alternatives to replace formerly grazed agricultural land. We used manipulated landscape photos to elicit their underlying value orientations. We combined multiple correspondence analysis with latent class regression models to reveal preference heterogeneity. Our models grouped respondents into three latent classes, with 24%, 24% and 52%, respectively, expressing a preference for forest carbon sequestration, recreation or agriculture as the most crucial land-use function to be retained. Birth year emerged as a strong predictor of class membership. Specifically, generations born before 1970 were more inclined to support the continuation of agricultural landscapes, while those born in 1980 and later showed a stronger inclination towards natural forest succession for carbon sequestration or recreational purposes. Quantitatively, every 10-year reduction in age increased the odds of a respondent belonging to the forestation or recreation class (relative to the agricultural class) by a factor of 2. Interestingly, even among respondents who were classified as most climate concerned, natural forests were 50% more likely to be preferred over monoculture spruce plantation as a policy option. This suggests that there may be public resistance to spruce planting for climate mitigation purposes in Norway.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaozi Liu & Henrik Lindhjem & Kristine Grimsrud & Einar Leknes & Endre Tvinnereim, 2023. "Is there a generational shift in preferences for forest carbon sequestration vs. preservation of agricultural landscapes?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(9), pages 1-22, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:176:y:2023:i:9:d:10.1007_s10584-023-03588-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-023-03588-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-023-03588-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-023-03588-z?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Geys, Benny & Heggedal, Tom-Reiel & Sørensen, Rune J., 2021. "Popular Support for Environmental Protection: A Life-Cycle Perspective," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 1348-1355, July.
    2. Gene M. Grossman & Alan B. Krueger, 1995. "Economic Growth and the Environment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(2), pages 353-377.
    3. Grimsrud, Kristine & Graesse, Maximo & Lindhjem, Henrik, 2020. "Using the generalised Q method in ecological economics: A better way to capture representative values and perspectives in ecosystem service management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    4. Carola Braun & Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2018. "Public perception of climate engineering and carbon capture and storage in Germany: survey evidence," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 471-484, April.
    5. Linzer, Drew A. & Lewis, Jeffrey B., 2011. "poLCA: An R Package for Polytomous Variable Latent Class Analysis," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 42(i10).
    6. Poortinga, Wouter & Spence, Alexa & Demski, Christina & Pidgeon, Nick F., 2012. "Individual-motivational factors in the acceptability of demand-side and supply-side measures to reduce carbon emissions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 812-819.
    7. Deniz Dutz & Ingrid Huitfeldt & Santiago Lacouture & Magne Mogstad & Alexander Torgovitsky & Winnie van Dijk, 2021. "Selection in Surveys: Using Randomized Incentives to Detect and Account for Nonresponse Bias," NBER Working Papers 29549, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Sara Maestre-Andrés & Stefan Drews & Jeroen van den Bergh, 2020. "Perceived fairness and public acceptability of carbon pricing: a review of the literature," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(9), pages 1186-1204, July.
    9. Mattmann, Matteo & Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy, 2016. "Wind power externalities: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 23-36.
    10. Liang, Yicheng & Li, Shuzhuo & Feldman, Marcus W. & Daily, Gretchen C., 2012. "Does household composition matter? The impact of the Grain for Green Program on rural livelihoods in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 152-160.
    11. Xiaozi Liu & Endre Tvinnereim & Kristine M. Grimsrud & Henrik Lindhjem & Liv Guri Velle & Heidi Iren Saure & Hanna Lee, 2021. "Explaining landscape preference heterogeneity using machine learning-based survey analysis," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(3), pages 417-434, April.
    12. Jensen, Anne Kejser & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2019. "Childhood Nature Experiences and Adulthood Environmental Preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 48-56.
    13. Fithian, William & Josse, Julie, 2017. "Multiple correspondence analysis and the multilogit bilinear model," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 87-102.
    14. Stefan Drews & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2016. "What explains public support for climate policies? A review of empirical and experimental studies," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(7), pages 855-876, October.
    15. Inglehart, Ronald, 1981. "Post-Materialism in an Environment of Insecurity," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 75(4), pages 880-900, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Italo Colantone & Livio Di Lonardo & Yotam Margalit & Marco Percoco, 2022. "The Political Consequences of Green Policies: Evidence from Italy," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 22176, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    2. Fateh Belaïd, Sabri Boubaker, Rajwane Kafrouni, 2020. "Carbon emissions, income inequality and environmental degradation: the case of Mediterranean countries," European Journal of Comparative Economics, Cattaneo University (LIUC), vol. 17(1), pages 73-102, June.
    3. Ravigné, Emilien & Ghersi, Frédéric & Nadaud, Franck, 2022. "Is a fair energy transition possible? Evidence from the French low-carbon strategy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    4. Ewald, Jens & Sterner, Thomas & Sterner, Erik, 2022. "Understanding the resistance to carbon taxes: Drivers and barriers among the general public and fuel-tax protesters," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    5. Jo, Ara & Carattini, Stefano, 2021. "Trust and CO2 emissions: Cooperation on a global scale," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 922-937.
    6. Francisco Serranito & Donatella Gatti & Gaye-Del Lo, 2023. "Unpacking the green box: Determinants of Environmental Policy Stringency in European countries," Working Papers hal-04202808, HAL.
    7. Thomas, Melanee & DeCillia, Brooks & Santos, John B. & Thorlakson, Lori, 2022. "Great expectations: Public opinion about energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    8. Daniele Malerba, 2022. "The Effects of Social Protection and Social Cohesion on the Acceptability of Climate Change Mitigation Policies: What Do We (Not) Know in the Context of Low- and Middle-Income Countries?," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 34(3), pages 1358-1382, June.
    9. Colantone, Italo & Di Lonardo, Livio & Margalit, Yotan & Percoco, Marco, 2022. "The Political Consequences of Green Policies: Evidence from Italy," FEEM Working Papers 327326, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    10. Andrew G. Meyer, 2022. "Do economic conditions affect climate change beliefs and support for climate action? Evidence from the US in the wake of the Great Recession," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(1), pages 64-86, January.
    11. Ivan Savin & Stefan Drews & Sara Maestre-Andrés & Jeroen Bergh, 2020. "Public views on carbon taxation and its fairness: a computational-linguistics analysis," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(4), pages 2107-2138, October.
    12. Mireille Chiroleu-Assouline & Mouez Fodha, 2023. "Debt, tax and environmental policy [Dette, taxe et politique environnementale]," Post-Print halshs-04181981, HAL.
    13. Stephanie Jütersonke & Martin Groß, 2023. "The Effect of Social Recognition on Support for Climate Change Mitigation Measures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-29, December.
    14. Laurent Ott & Mehdi Farsi & Sylvain Weber, 2021. "Beyond political divides: analyzing public opinion on carbon taxation in Switzerland," Chapters, in: Axel Franzen & Sebastian Mader (ed.), Research Handbook on Environmental Sociology, chapter 17, pages 313-339, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Sverker C. Jagers & Erick Lachapelle & Johan Martinsson & Simon Matti, 2021. "Bridging the ideological gap? How fairness perceptions mediate the effect of revenue recycling on public support for carbon taxes in the United States, Canada and Germany," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(5), pages 529-554, September.
    16. Vona, Francesco, 2023. "Managing the distributional effects of climate policies: A narrow path to a just transition," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    17. Douenne, Thomas & Fabre, Adrien, 2020. "French attitudes on climate change, carbon taxation and other climate policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    18. Kanberger, Elke D. & Ziegler, Andreas, 2023. "On the preferences for an environmentally friendly and fair energy transition: A stated choice experiment for Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    19. Mireille Chiroleu-Assouline, 2022. "Rendre acceptable la nécessaire taxation du carbone. Quelles pistes pour la France ?," Revue de l'OFCE, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(1), pages 15-53.
    20. Italo Colantone & Livio Di Lonardo & Yotam Margalit & Marco Percoco, 2022. "The Political Consequences of Green Policies: Evidence from Italy," CESifo Working Paper Series 9599, CESifo.

    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:spr:climat:v:176:y:2023:i:9:d:10.1007_s10584-023-03588-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.