IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v141y2022ics1389934122000909.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Graves, Rose A.
  • Nielsen-Pincus, Max
  • Haugo, Ryan D.
  • Holz, Andrés

Abstract

Privately-owned forests in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) are important potential carbon sinks and play a large role in carbon sequestration and storage. Non-industrial private forest (NIPF) owners constitute a substantial portion of overall forest landownership in productive regions of the PNW; however, little is known about their preferences for non-market incentive programs aimed at increased carbon storage and sequestration, specifically by limiting timber harvest, and how those preferences might impact the outcome of forest carbon programs. We simulated landscape-scale outcomes of hypothetical forest carbon incentive programs in western Oregon (USA) by combining empirical models of NIPF owners' participation with spatially explicit forest carbon storage and sequestration data. We surveyed landowners to determine their willingness to enroll in various hypothetical forest management incentive programs that varied in terms of harvest restrictions, contract length, annual payment and incentive payment amounts, and cost-share percentages, as well as the program framing (e.g., carbon versus forest health). We used multinomial logistic regression to model whether landowners might enroll based on program attributes, landowners' attitudes toward climate change and forest management, past and planned future forest harvest activities, and socio-demographics. We found that 36% of respondents stated that they would probably or definitely enroll in at least one of the hypothetical programs they were shown while 21% of respondents refused all programs that they were offered. Our final model of landowner willingness to enroll indicated that higher annual and higher cost-share payments were the strongest positive predictors of whether landowners would enroll vs. not enroll. Landowners' willingness to enroll was not influenced by program framing as either a “forest carbon” or a “forest health”; however, landowner attitudes toward climate change were the next strongest positive predictor of enrollment after annual and cost-share payments. By simulating landowner enrollment in six policy relevant program scenarios, we illustrate that carefully designed forest carbon incentive programs for NIPF owners could have tangible carbon protection benefits (16.25 to 50.31 MMT CO2e cumulative) at relatively low costs per MT CO2e ($3.60 to $7.70). We highlight tradeoffs between maximizing enrollment in forest carbon incentive programs and providing longer term protection of carbon. This research contributes to the literature on the design of potential forest carbon incentive programs and communication about forest carbon management, as well as aims to aid policy makers and program administrators that seek ways to engage private landowners in carbon-oriented forest management.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:141:y:2022:i:c:s1389934122000909
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102778
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934122000909
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102778?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. Louviere, Jordan J. & Islam, Towhidul, 2008. "A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(9), pages 903-911, September.
    2. 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, March.
    3. Mason, Charles F. & Plantinga, Andrew J., 2013. "The additionality problem with offsets: Optimal contracts for carbon sequestration in forests," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 1-14.
    4. Warren Pearce & Sabine Niederer & Suay Melisa Özkula & Natalia Sánchez Querubín, 2019. "The social media life of climate change: Platforms, publics, and future imaginaries," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), March.
    5. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Soh, Moonwon & English, Burton C. & Yu, T. Edward & Boyer, Christopher N., 2019. "Targeting payments for forest carbon sequestration given ecological and economic objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 214-226.
    6. Jayasuriya, Maneesha T. & Germain, René H. & Wagner, John E., 2020. "Protecting timberland RMZs through carbon markets: A protocol for riparian carbon offsets," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    7. David J. Lewis & Andrew J. Plantinga, 2007. "Policies for Habitat Fragmentation: Combining Econometrics with GIS-Based Landscape Simulations," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(2), pages 109-127.
    8. 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.
    9. Gregory, S. Amacher & Christine Conway, M. & Sullivan, Jay & Gregory, S. Amacher, 2003. "Econometric analyses of nonindustrial forest landowners: Is there anything left to study?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 137-164.
    10. 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.
    11. Langpap, Christian, 2006. "Conservation of endangered species: Can incentives work for private landowners?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 558-572, June.
    12. Payal Shah & Amy W. Ando, 2016. "Permanent and Temporary Policy Incentives for Conservation under Stochastic Returns from Competing Land Uses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1074-1094.
    13. 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.
    14. van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2018. "The Challenge of Mitigating Climate Change through Forestry Activities: What Are the Rules of the Game?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 35-43.
    15. Brent Sohngen & Robert Mendelsohn, 2003. "An Optimal Control Model of Forest Carbon Sequestration," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 448-457.
    16. 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.
    17. Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Abt, Robert C. & Sommer, Allan J. & Cubbage, Fred & Murray, Brian C. & Yang, Jui-Chen & Wear, David & Ahn, SoEun, 2004. "Forest forecasts: does individual heterogeneity matter for market and landscape outcomes?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 243-260, June.
    18. Latta, Gregory S. & Adams, Darius M. & Bell, Kathleen P. & Kline, Jeffrey D., 2016. "Evaluating land-use and private forest management responses to a potential forest carbon offset sales program in western Oregon (USA)," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 1-8.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Lee, Juhee & Roberts, Roland & Yu, Edward T. & Armsworth, Paul R., 2018. "Impact of market conditions on the effectiveness of payments for forest-based carbon sequestration," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 33-42.
    22. Kline, Jeffrey D. & Alig, Ralph J. & Johnson, Rebecca L., 2000. "Forest owner incentives to protect riparian habitat," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 29-43, April.
    23. Rose A Graves & Ryan D Haugo & Andrés Holz & Max Nielsen-Pincus & Aaron Jones & Bryce Kellogg & Cathy Macdonald & Kenneth Popper & Michael Schindel, 2020. "Potential greenhouse gas reductions from Natural Climate Solutions in Oregon, USA," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-30, April.
    24. 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.
    25. Kim, Man-Keun & McCarl, Bruce A. & Murray, Brian C., 2008. "Permanence discounting for land-based carbon sequestration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 763-769, February.
    26. Sebastiaan Luyssaert & E. -Detlef Schulze & Annett Börner & Alexander Knohl & Dominik Hessenmöller & Beverly E. Law & Philippe Ciais & John Grace, 2008. "Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks," Nature, Nature, vol. 455(7210), pages 213-215, September.
    27. Champ, Patricia A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Brown, Thomas C. & McCollum, Daniel W., 1997. "Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 151-162, June.
    28. N. L. Stephenson & A. J. Das & R. Condit & S. E. Russo & P. J. Baker & N. G. Beckman & D. A. Coomes & E. R. Lines & W. K. Morris & N. Rüger & E. Álvarez & C. Blundo & S. Bunyavejchewin & G. Chuyong & , 2014. "Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size," Nature, Nature, vol. 507(7490), pages 90-93, March.
    29. 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.
    30. 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.
    31. 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.
    32. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. Roy Chowdhury, Pranab K. & Brown, Daniel G., 2023. "Modeling the effects of carbon payments and forest owner cooperatives on carbon storage and revenue in Pacific Northwest forestlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    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. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Favero, Alice & Mendelsohn, Robert & Sohngen, Brent, 2016. "Carbon Storage and Bioenergy: Using Forests for Climate Mitigation," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 232215, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    12. Rubino, Elena C. & Pienaar, Elizabeth F. & Soto, José R., 2018. "Structuring Legal Trade in Rhino Horn to Incentivize the Participation of South African Private Landowners," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 306-316.
    13. Parisa, Zack & Marland, Eric & Sohngen, Brent & Marland, Gregg & Jenkins, Jennifer, 2022. "The time value of carbon storage," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    14. Soto, Jose R. & Adams, Damian C., 2012. "Estimating the Supply of Forest Carbon Offsets: A Comparison of Best- Worst and Discrete Choice Valuation Methods," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124830, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Kline, Jeffrey D. & Houston, Laurie L. & Gray, Andrew N. & Monleon, Vicente, 2021. "Evaluating empirical evidence for housing development effects on the management of remaining private-owned forest in the U.S," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    16. Seong-Hoon Cho & Bijay P. Sharma, 2020. "Optimal spatial budget distribution of forest carbon payments that balances the returns and risks associated with conservation costs," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(8), pages 7239-7267, December.
    17. Ekholm, Tommi, 2016. "Optimal forest rotation age under efficient climate change mitigation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 62-68.
    18. Miguel RIVIERE & Sylvain CAURLA, 2018. "Integrating non-timber objectives into bio-economic models of the forest sector: a review of recent innovations and current shortcomings," Working Papers of BETA 2018-26, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    19. Rose A Graves & Ryan D Haugo & Andrés Holz & Max Nielsen-Pincus & Aaron Jones & Bryce Kellogg & Cathy Macdonald & Kenneth Popper & Michael Schindel, 2020. "Potential greenhouse gas reductions from Natural Climate Solutions in Oregon, USA," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-30, April.
    20. Zhou, Mo, 2015. "Adapting sustainable forest management to climate policy uncertainty: A conceptual framework," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 66-74.

    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:eee:forpol:v:141:y:2022:i:c:s1389934122000909. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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.