IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/urv/wpaper/2072-261536.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What are the social benefits of carbon sequestration?

Author

Listed:
  • Mogas Amorós, Joan

Abstract

The costs of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions or their sequestration have received a great deal of attention. On the other hand, the benefits of the reduction or sequestration have been limited to avoided costs, which in general do not reflect the social benefits. Knowing the benefits to the whole society would help to make rational economic decisions on the amount of resources devoted to carbon sequestration or emission reductions. This article presents the methods based on increasing the amount of carbon stored in the system but it reflects the social value of the society instead of the cost of sequestering carbon. Keywords: Social cost of carbon, Non-market valuation, Forest attributes.

Suggested Citation

  • Mogas Amorós, Joan, 2016. "What are the social benefits of carbon sequestration?," Working Papers 2072/261536, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:urv:wpaper:2072/261536
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2072/261536
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scarpa, Riccardo & Chilton, Susan M. & Hutchinson, W. George & Buongiorno, Joseph, 2000. "Valuing the recreational benefits from the creation of nature reserves in Irish forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 237-250, May.
    2. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    3. William S. Breffle & Edward R. Morey & Tymon S. Lodder, 1998. "Using Contingent Valuation to Estimate a Neighbourhood's Willingness to Pay to Preserve Undeveloped Urban Land," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 35(4), pages 715-727, April.
    4. Loomis, John B. & Gonzalez-Caban, Armando, 1998. "A willingness-to-pay function for protecting acres of spotted owl habitat from fire," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 315-322, June.
    5. Andrew J. Plantinga & JunJie Wu, 2003. "Co-Benefits from Carbon Sequestration in Forests: Evaluating Reductions in Agricultural Externalities from an Afforestation Policy in Wisconsin," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(1), pages 74-85.
    6. Flatley, G. W. & Bennett, J. W., 1996. "Using Contingent Valuation to Determine Australian Tourists' Values for Forest Conservation in Vanuatu," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 111-127, September.
    7. Shrestha, Ram K. & Alavalapati, Janaki R. R., 2004. "Valuing environmental benefits of silvopasture practice: a case study of the Lake Okeechobee watershed in Florida," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 349-359, July.
    8. Robert N. Stavins, 1999. "The Costs of Carbon Sequestration: A Revealed-Preference Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(4), pages 994-1009, September.
    9. Loomis, John & Kent, Paula & Strange, Liz & Fausch, Kurt & Covich, Alan, 2000. "Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 103-117, April.
    10. Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2004. "What's it worth? An examination of historical trends and future directions in environmental valuation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), pages 1-25.
    11. Rosen, Sherwin, 1974. "Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(1), pages 34-55, Jan.-Feb..
    12. Michael Jefferson & K. Yokobori & Hoesung Lee, 1996. "Wec Working Group on Potential Climate Change," Energy & Environment, , vol. 7(2), pages 123-146, March.
    13. G. Cornelis van Kooten & Clark S. Binkley & Gregg Delcourt, 1995. "Effect of Carbon Taxes and Subsidies on Optimal Forest Rotation Age and Supply of Carbon Services," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(2), pages 365-374.
    14. Linwood Pendleton & Robert Mendelsohn, 2000. "Estimating Recreation Preferences Using Hedonic Travel Cost and Random Utility Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 17(1), pages 89-108, September.
    15. Research Department, . "Agricultural Letter," Agricultural Letter, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, vol. 1957(419).
    16. DANIEL J. DUDEK & ALICE LeBLANC, 1990. "Offsetting New Co2 Emissions: A Rational First Greenhouse Policy Step," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 8(3), pages 29-42, July.
    17. 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)

    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. 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.
    2. Chadourne, Matthew H. & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Roberts, Roland K., 2011. "Ridge, Slope, and Hillside Protection Taskforce Projects in Knox County, Tennessee: Costs and Benefits of Reforestation of Target Areas," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103846, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Elberg Nielsen, Anne Sofie & Plantinga, Andrew J. & Alig, Ralph J., 2014. "Mitigating climate change through afforestation: New cost estimates for the United States," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 83-98.
    4. Hennessy, David A. & Saak, Alexander E., 2003. "State-Contingent Demand for Herbicide-Tolerance Seed Trait," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 28(1), pages 1-14, April.
    5. Brey, Raul & Riera, Pere & Mogas, Joan, 2007. "Estimation of forest values using choice modeling: An application to Spanish forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 305-312, December.
    6. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    7. Robert N. Stavins, 1998. "A Methodological Investigation of the Costs of Carbon Sequestration," Journal of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 231-277, November.
    8. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    9. Rong Li & Brent Sohngen & Xiaohui Tian, 2022. "Efficiency of forest carbon policies at intensive and extensive margins," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(4), pages 1243-1267, August.
    10. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    11. Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.
    12. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    13. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    15. Rinaldo Brau, 2008. "Demand-Driven Sustainable Tourism? A Choice Modelling Analysis," Tourism Economics, , vol. 14(4), pages 691-708, December.
    16. Couture, Stéphane & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Forest management under fire risk when forest carbon sequestration has value," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2002-2011, September.
    17. van der Kroon, Bianca & Brouwer, Roy & van Beukering, Pieter J.H., 2014. "The impact of the household decision environment on fuel choice behavior," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 236-247.
    18. Maurizio d’Amato, 2007. "Comparing Rough Set Theory with Multiple Regression Analysis as Automated Valuation Methodologies," International Real Estate Review, Global Social Science Institute, vol. 10(2), pages 42-65.
    19. 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.
    20. Kousky, Carolyn & Walls, Margaret, 2014. "Floodplain conservation as a flood mitigation strategy: Examining costs and benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 119-128.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Anhídrid carbònic; Emissions atmosfèriques -- Aspectes econòmics; 33 - Economia; 504 - Ciències del medi ambient;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:urv:wpaper:2072/261536. 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: Ariadna Casals (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deurves.html .

    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.