Barriers to Massachusetts forest landowner participation in carbon markets
U.S. forests, including family-owned forests, are important carbon sinks and sources for carbon sequestration. Family forest owners constitute a significant portion of the overall forestland in the U.S., but little is known about their preferences for participating in carbon sequestration programs. The goal of this research is to understand what motivates Massachusetts family forest owners to participate in carbon markets. The study estimates the probability these landowners would engage in carbon sequestration programs using data from a survey of 930 Massachusetts family forest owners. Results from a random effects ordered probit indicate that under a carbon scenario similar to the current voluntary scheme, very few of these landowners would be interested in participating. Supply analysis indicates these landowners are more influenced to participate by factors other than price. Regression analysis results suggest that survey respondents are concerned about early withdrawal penalties, additionality requirements, and contract length. Forest owner harvesting plans, opinions about forest usage, and beliefs about climate change all play a significant role in the decision to participate. The study suggests that policy makers should consider the reasons behind these low participation rates, because private forest owners could play a pivotal role in the carbon sequestration potential of forests.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Kilgore, Michael A. & Snyder, Stephanie A. & Schertz, Joseph & Taff, Steven J., 2008. "What does it take to get family forest owners to enroll in a forest stewardship-type program?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(7-8), pages 507-514, October.
- Sabina L. Shaikh & Lili Sun & G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2007. "Are Agricultural Values a Reliable Guide in Determining Landowners' Decisions to Create Forest Carbon Sinks?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 55(1), pages 97-114, 03.
- Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria, 2008.
"Assessing Management Options for Weed Control with Demanders and Non-Demanders in a Choice Experiment,"
University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(3), pages 517-528.
- Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh, 2006. "Assessing management options for weed control with demanders and non-demanders in a choice experiment," Working Papers in Economics 208, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
- Darius M. Adams & Ralph J. Alig & DBruce A. McCarl & John M. Callaway & Steven M. Winnett, 1999. "Minimum Cost Strategies for Sequestering Carbon in Forests," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(3), pages 360-374.
- Thomas, H. Stevens & White, Sarah & Kittredge, David B. & Dennis, Donald, 2002. "Factors affecting NIPF landowner participation in management programs: a Massachusetts case study," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 169-184.
- Nape, Steven & Frykblom, Peter & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lesley, James C., 2003. "Hypothetical bias and willingness to accept," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 423-430, March.
- Peter Frykblom & Glenn Harrison & Clay Lesley & Stephen Nape, 2002. "Hypothetical Bias and Willingness to Accept," Working Papers 02-14, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
- Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, Diciembre.
- Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, Diciembre.
- Kenneth Train, 2003. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Online economics textbooks, SUNY-Oswego, Department of Economics, number emetr2.
- Lubowski, Ruben N. & Plantinga, Andrew J. & Stavins, Robert N., 2006. "Land-use change and carbon sinks: Econometric estimation of the carbon sequestration supply function," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 135-152, March.
- Lubowski, Ruben & Plantinga, Andrew & Stavins, Robert, 2005. "Land-Use Change and Carbon Sinks: Econometric Estimation of the Carbon Sequestration Supply Function," Working Paper Series rwp05-001, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
- Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
- Cairns, Robert D. & Lasserre, Pierre, 2004. "Reinforcing economic incentives for carbon credits for forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 321-328, June.
- Robert C. Cairns & Pierre Lasserre, 2004. "Reinforcing Economic Incentives for Carbon Credits for Forests," CIRANO Working Papers 2004s-12, CIRANO.
- Andrew Stainback, G. & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R., 2002. "Economic analysis of slash pine forest carbon sequestration in the southern U. S," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 105-117.
- Huang, Ching-Hsun & Kronrad, Gary D., 2001. "The cost of sequestering carbon on private forest lands," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 133-142, June.
- Ralph Alig & Darius Adams & Bruce McCarl & J. Callaway & Steven Winnett, 1997. "Assessing effects of mitigation strategies for global climate change with an intertemporal model of the U.S. forest and agriculture sectors," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 9(3), pages 259-274, April.
- G. Cornelis van Kooten & Sabina Lee Shaikh & Pavel Suchánek, 2002. "Mitigating Climate Change by Planting Trees: The Transaction Costs Trap," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(4), pages 559-572.
- G. Cornelis van Kooten & Alison Eagle & James Manley & Tara Smolak, 2004. "How Costly are Carbon Offsets? A Meta-Analysis of Forest Carbon Sinks," Working Papers 2004-01, University of Victoria, Department of Economics, Resource Economics and Policy Analysis Research Group.
- Im, Eun Ho & Adams, Darius M. & Latta, Gregory S., 2007. "Potential impacts of carbon taxes on carbon flux in western Oregon private forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 1006-1017, May.
- Shaikh, Sabina L. & Sun, Lili & Cornelis van Kooten, G., 2007. "Treating respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: A comparison of empirical treatments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 115-125, April.
- LeVert, Michael & Stevens, Thomas & Kittredge, Dave, 2009. "Willingness-to-sell conservation easements: A case study," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 261-275, December.
- Klosowski, R. & Stevens, T. & Kittredge, D. & Dennis, D., 2001. "Economic incentives for coordinated management of forest land: a case study of southern New England," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 29-38, April. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:71:y:2011:i:c:p:180-190. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.