IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/zewdip/21088.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The demand for voluntary carbon sequestration: Experimental evidence from a reforestation project in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Bartels, Lara
  • Kesternich, Martin
  • Löschel, Andreas

Abstract

With the increasing recognition of the use of reforestation measures as a complement to conventional carbon emissions avoidance technologies it is important to understand the market valuation of local forest carbon sinks for climate change mitigation. We conducted a framed-field experiment among a Germany-wide sample to provide a revealed preference study on the individual willingness to pay (WTP) for carbon sequestration through forests. Our particular focus is on the role of local co-benefits of climate protection activities. In addition, we add geo-data to our experimental data to analyze the impact of spatial variation on the individual WTP. We find that the WTP for carbon removal exceeds the WTP for mitigation efforts found in previous studies. While spatial distances does affect the likelihood to contribute to a local carbon sink, it does not affect the average amount given. Additional survey data finds that trust in forest measures is higher compared to mitigation via an emissions trading scheme, whichcould explain the comparably high WTP.

Suggested Citation

  • Bartels, Lara & Kesternich, Martin & Löschel, Andreas, 2021. "The demand for voluntary carbon sequestration: Experimental evidence from a reforestation project in Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-088, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:zewdip:21088
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/247697/1/1780023162.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. K. G. Austin & J. S. Baker & B. L. Sohngen & C. M. Wade & A. Daigneault & S. B. Ohrel & S. Ragnauth & A. Bean, 2020. "The economic costs of planting, preserving, and managing the world’s forests to mitigate climate change," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, December.
    2. Paul G. Bain & Taciano L. Milfont & Yoshihisa Kashima & Michał Bilewicz & Guy Doron & Ragna B. Garðarsdóttir & Valdiney V. Gouveia & Yanjun Guan & Lars-Olof Johansson & Carlota Pasquali & Victor Corra, 2016. "Correction: Corrigendum: Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(5), pages 538-538, May.
    3. van der Horst, Dan, 2006. "Spatial cost-benefit thinking in multi-functional forestry; towards a framework for spatial targeting of policy interventions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 171-180, August.
    4. Gren, Ing-Marie & Zeleke, Abenezer Aklilu, 2016. "Policy design for forest carbon sequestration: A review of the literature," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 128-136.
    5. Paul G. Bain & Taciano L. Milfont & Yoshihisa Kashima & Michał Bilewicz & Guy Doron & Ragna B. Garðarsdóttir & Valdiney V. Gouveia & Yanjun Guan & Lars-Olof Johansson & Carlota Pasquali & Victor Corra, 2016. "Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(2), pages 154-157, February.
    6. Matthew J. Kotchen, 2006. "Green Markets and Private Provision of Public Goods," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(4), pages 816-845, August.
    7. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.
    8. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2023. "The Preference Survey Module: A Validated Instrument for Measuring Risk, Time, and Social Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(4), pages 1935-1950, April.
    9. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    10. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Wiktor Budziński & Danny Campbell & Marek Giergiczny & Nick Hanley, 2017. "Spatial Heterogeneity of Willingness to Pay for Forest Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 705-727, November.
    11. Johannes Diederich & Timo Goeschl, 2014. "Willingness to Pay for Voluntary Climate Action and Its Determinants: Field-Experimental Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(3), pages 405-429, March.
    12. Diederich, Johannes & Goeschl, Timo, 2018. "Voluntary action for climate change mitigation does not exhibit locational preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 175-180.
    13. Oliver Geden & Glen P. Peters & Vivian Scott, 2019. "Targeting carbon dioxide removal in the European Union," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 487-494, April.
    14. Sabine Fuss & Josep G. Canadell & Glen P. Peters & Massimo Tavoni & Robbie M. Andrew & Philippe Ciais & Robert B. Jackson & Chris D. Jones & Florian Kraxner & Nebosja Nakicenovic & Corinne Le Quéré & , 2014. "Betting on negative emissions," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 4(10), pages 850-853, October.
    15. 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.
    16. Baranzini, Andrea & Faust, Anne-Kathrin & Huberman, David, 2010. "Tropical forest conservation: Attitudes and preferences," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 370-376, June.
    17. Michael Obersteiner & Johannes Bednar & Fabian Wagner & Thomas Gasser & Philippe Ciais & Nicklas Forsell & Stefan Frank & Petr Havlik & Hugo Valin & Ivan A. Janssens & Josep Peñuelas & Guido Schmidt-T, 2018. "How to spend a dwindling greenhouse gas budget," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 7-10, January.
      • Michael Obersteiner & Johannes Bednar & Fabian Wagner & Thomas Gasser & Philippe Ciais & Nicklas Forsell & Stefan Frank & Petr Havlík & Hugo Valin & Ivan Janssens & Josep Penuelas & Guido Schmidt-Trau, 2018. "How to spend a dwindling greenhouse gas budget," Post-Print hal-02895061, HAL.
    18. Nunez, Daisy & Nahuelhual, Laura & Oyarzun, Carlos, 2006. "Forests and water: The value of native temperate forests in supplying water for human consumption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 606-616, June.
    19. Ninan, K.N. & Inoue, Makoto, 2013. "Valuing forest ecosystem services: What we know and what we don't," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 137-149.
    20. Baranzini, Andrea & Borzykowski, Nicolas & Carattini, Stefano, 2018. "Carbon offsets out of the woods? Acceptability of domestic vs. international reforestation programmes in the lab," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-12.
    21. Löschel, Andreas & Sturm, Bodo & Vogt, Carsten, 2013. "The demand for climate protection—Empirical evidence from Germany," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(3), pages 415-418.
    22. World Bank, "undated". "State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2020 [Situación y tendencias de la fijación del precio al carbono 2020]," World Bank Publications - Reports 33809, The World Bank Group.
    23. Anderson, Brilé & Bernauer, Thomas, 2016. "How much carbon offsetting and where? Implications of efficiency, effectiveness, and ethicality considerations for public opinion formation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 387-395.
    24. 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.
    25. Vivian Scott & Oliver Geden, 2018. "The challenge of carbon dioxide removal for EU policy-making," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 3(5), pages 350-352, May.
    26. Eilidh J. Forster & John R. Healey & Caren Dymond & David Styles, 2021. "Commercial afforestation can deliver effective climate change mitigation under multiple decarbonisation pathways," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, December.
    27. Bakhtiari, Fatemeh & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Strange, Niels & Boman, Mattias, 2018. "Disentangling Distance and Country Effects on the Value of Conservation across National Borders," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 11-20.
    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. Daniel Engler & Gunnar Gutsche & Amantia Simixhiu & Andreas Ziegler, 2022. "Social norms and individual climate protection activities: A framed field experiment for Germany," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202230, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    2. Toshi H. Arimura & Elke D. Groh & Miwa Nakai & Andreas Ziegler, 2022. "The causal effect of private and organizational climate-related identity on climate protection activities: Evidence from a framed field experiment in Japan," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202229, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    3. Engler, Daniel & Ziegler, Andreas & Gutsche, Gunnar & Simixhiu, Amantia, 2023. "Social Norms and Individual Climate Protection Activities: A Framed Field Experiment for Germany," VfS Annual Conference 2023 (Regensburg): Growth and the "sociale Frage" 277662, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    4. Feldhaus, Christoph & Gleue, Marvin & Löschel, Andreas & Werner, Peter, 2022. "Co-benefits motivate individual donations to mitigate climate change," Research Memorandum 004, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).

    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. Baranzini, Andrea & Borzykowski, Nicolas & Carattini, Stefano, 2018. "Carbon offsets out of the woods? Acceptability of domestic vs. international reforestation programmes in the lab," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-12.
    2. 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.
    3. Helena Fornwagner & Oliver P. Hauser, 2022. "Climate Action for (My) Children," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(1), pages 95-130, January.
    4. Diederich, Johannes & Goeschl, Timo, 2017. "To mitigate or not to mitigate: The price elasticity of pro-environmental behavior," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 209-222.
    5. Kesternich, Martin & Bartels, Lara, 2021. "Do Municipal Climate Protection Activities interfere with Individual Engagement?," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242456, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    6. Ángel Galán-Martín & Daniel Vázquez & Selene Cobo & Niall Dowell & José Antonio Caballero & Gonzalo Guillén-Gosálbez, 2021. "Delaying carbon dioxide removal in the European Union puts climate targets at risk," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, December.
    7. Andreas Loschel & Michael Price & Laura Razzolini & Madeline Werthschulte, 2020. "Negative income shocks and the support of environmental policies - Insights from the COVID-19 pandemic," Framed Field Experiments 00710, The Field Experiments Website.
    8. Alberini, Anna & Bigano, Andrea & Ščasný, Milan & Zvěřinová, Iva, 2018. "Preferences for Energy Efficiency vs. Renewables: What Is the Willingness to Pay to Reduce CO2 Emissions?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 171-185.
    9. Negri, Valentina & Galán-Martín, Ángel & Pozo, Carlos & Fajardy, Mathilde & Reiner, David M. & Mac Dowell, Niall & Guillén-Gosálbez, Gonzalo, 2021. "Life cycle optimization of BECCS supply chains in the European Union," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).
    10. Diederich, Johannes & Epperson, Raphael & Goeschl, Timo, 2021. "How to Design the Ask? Funding Units vs. Giving Money," Working Papers 0698, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    11. Bernard, René & Tzamourani, Panagiota & Weber, Michael, 2022. "Climate change and individual behavior," Discussion Papers 01/2022, Deutsche Bundesbank.
    12. 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.
    13. Andrea Baranzini & Nicolas Borzykowski & Stefano Carattini, 2016. "Carbon offsets out of the woods? The acceptability of domestic vs. international reforestation programmes," GRI Working Papers 257, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    14. Daan Hulshof & Machiel Mulder, 2020. "Willingness to Pay for $$\hbox {CO}_2$$CO2 Emission Reductions in Passenger Car Transport," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(4), pages 899-929, April.
    15. Lea S. Svenningsen & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2020. "Preferences for Distributional Impacts of Climate Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(1), pages 1-24, January.
    16. 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.
    17. Weimann, Joachim & Brosig-Koch, Jeannette & Heinrich, Timo & Hennig-Schmidt, Heike & Keser, Claudia, 2022. "CO2 Emission reduction – Real public good provision by large groups in the laboratory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 1076-1089.
    18. Lea S. Svenningsen, 2019. "Social preferences for distributive outcomes of climate policy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 157(2), pages 319-336, November.
    19. Tao, Yujie & Duan, Maosheng & Deng, Zhe, 2021. "Using an extended theory of planned behaviour to explain willingness towards voluntary carbon offsetting among Chinese consumers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    20. Diederich, Johannes & Goeschl, Timo, 2017. "Does Mitigation Begin At Home?," Working Papers 0634, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    voluntary provision of environmental public goods; climate change mitigation; carbon sequestration; willingness to pay; co-benefits; revealed preferences; framed-field experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods

    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:zbw:zewdip:21088. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zemande.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.