IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v172y2025ics1389934125000292.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of cost assumptions on forest carbon targets and supply dynamics

Author

Listed:
  • Cho, Seong-Hoon
  • Mingie, James C.

Abstract

Including both explicit and opportunity costs in valuing ecosystem services offers a comprehensive economic assessment, but practical applications often focus on explicit costs alone. This study examines the evolution of spatial targets and supply dynamics for forest carbon in the Central and Southern Appalachian Region, transitioning from a solely explicit-cost approach to one incorporating weighted opportunity costs. We calculate opportunity cost weights by analyzing development pressure at the pixel level, where each pixel's forest conversion rate—estimated as the anticipated shift from forest to urban land use—serves as an index for local development pressure. These weights range from zero (no development pressure) to one (full development pressure), with higher weights assigned to areas facing greater likelihoods of conversion. This approach provides flexibility in estimating opportunity costs based on localized economic pressures. Our findings indicate that incorporating opportunity costs significantly affects forest carbon supply dynamics, with higher development pressures leading to increased costs and reduced potential for carbon storage. By applying weighted opportunity costs, however, the financial burden is moderated, supporting a balance between carbon storage goals and economic considerations. These findings suggest that forest conservation programs would benefit from regionally adjusted incentives, especially in development-prone areas where high opportunity costs might deter landowners from participating. By prioritizing regions with critical carbon storage potential and high conversion risk, conservation policies could maximize environmental impact and economic efficiency across the Appalachian landscape. This approach offers a pathway for conservation policies that support carbon sequestration objectives while acknowledging economic trade-offs.

Suggested Citation

  • Cho, Seong-Hoon & Mingie, James C., 2025. "Impact of cost assumptions on forest carbon targets and supply dynamics," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:172:y:2025:i:c:s1389934125000292
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103450
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934125000292
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103450?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. World Bank, "undated". "State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2023," World Bank Publications - Reports 39796, The World Bank Group.
    2. 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.
    3. World Bank, "undated". "State and Trends of Carbon Pricing," World Bank Publications - Reports 40700, The World Bank Group.
    4. 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.
    5. Kline, Jeffrey D. & Alig, Ralph J., 2005. "Forestland development and private forestry with examples from Oregon (USA)," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(5), pages 709-720, August.
    6. 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.
    7. Frey, Gregory E. & Kallayanamitra, Chalisa & Wilkens, Philadelphia & James, Natasha A., 2021. "Payments for forest-based ecosystem services in the United States: Magnitudes and trends," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    8. Seong-Hoon Cho & Amine Ben Ayara & Dayton M. Lambert & Christopher D. Clark & Guangsheng Chen & Daniel J. Hayes & Bijay P. Sharma, 2020. "Deriving site-specific and time-varying supply curves for forest carbon storage," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 63(12), pages 2144-2162, October.
    9. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    10. Zhang, Yaoqi, 2005. "Multiple-use forestry vs. forestland-use specialization revisited," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 143-156, February.
    11. Börner, Jan & Baylis, Kathy & Corbera, Esteve & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss & Honey-Rosés, Jordi & Persson, U. Martin & Wunder, Sven, 2017. "The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 359-374.
    12. Luz Maria Castro & Fabian Härtl & Santiago Ochoa & Baltazar Calvas & Leonardo Izquierdo & Thomas Knoke, 2018. "Integrated bio-economic models as tools to support land-use decision making: a review of potential and limitations," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 183-211, July.
    13. Nelson, Gerald C. & Geoghegan, Jacqueline, 2002. "Deforestation and land use change: sparse data environments," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 201-216, November.
    14. Drew E. Terasaki Hart & Samantha Yeo & Maya Almaraz & Damien Beillouin & Rémi Cardinael & Edenise Garcia & Sonja Kay & Sarah Taylor Lovell & Todd S. Rosenstock & Starry Sprenkle-Hyppolite & Fred Stoll, 2023. "Priority science can accelerate agroforestry as a natural climate solution," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 13(11), pages 1179-1190, November.
    15. USDA Office of the Chief Economist, 2023. "Report to Congress: A General Assessment of the Role of Agriculture and Forestry in U.S. Carbon Markets," USDA Miscellaneous 349044, United States Department of Agriculture.
    16. Claassen, Roger & Cattaneo, Andrea & Johansson, Robert, 2008. "Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs: U.S. experience in theory and practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 737-752, May.
    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. KURKALOVA, Lyubov A. & WADE, Tara R., 2013. "Aggregated Choice Data And Logit Models: Application To Environmental Benign Practices Of Conservation Tillage By Farmers In The State Of Iowa," Applied Econometrics and International Development, Euro-American Association of Economic Development, vol. 13(2), pages 119-128.
    2. Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss & Corbera, Esteve & Lapeyre, Renaud, 2019. "Payments for Environmental Services and Motivation Crowding: Towards a Conceptual Framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 434-443.
    3. Ben Ayara, Amine & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Clark, Christopher & Lambert, Dayton & Armsworth, Paul, 2016. "Spatial and Temporal Variation in the Optimal Provision of Forest-based Carbon Storage," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236005, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Soh, Moonwon & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yu, Edward & Boyer, Christopher & English, Burton, 2018. "Targeting Payments for Ecosystem Services Given Ecological and Economic Objectives," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266502, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    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. Erin C. Pischke & Adam M. Wellstead, 2020. "Reimagining instrument constituencies: the case of conservation policy in Mexico," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 371-388, June.
    7. Alix-Garcia, Jennifer & Wolff, Hendrik, 2014. "Payment for Ecosystem Services from Forests," IZA Discussion Papers 8179, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Baker, J.S. & Wade, C.M. & Sohngen, B.L. & Ohrel, S. & Fawcett, A.A., 2019. "Potential complementarity between forest carbon sequestration incentives and biomass energy expansion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 391-401.
    9. Monge, Juan J. & Bryant, Henry L. & Gan, Jianbang & Richardson, James W., 2016. "Land use and general equilibrium implications of a forest-based carbon sequestration policy in the United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 102-120.
    10. Fries, Steven, 2023. "Sequencing decarbonization policies to manage their macroeconomic impacts," INET Oxford Working Papers 2023-26, Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford.
    11. Mangubhai, Sangeeta & Sykes, Helen & Manley, Marita & Vukikomoala, Kiji & Beattie, Madeline, 2020. "Contributions of tourism-based Marine Conservation Agreements to natural resource management in Fiji," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    12. Latta, Gregory & Adams, Darius M. & Alig, Ralph J. & White, Eric, 2011. "Simulated effects of mandatory versus voluntary participation in private forest carbon offset markets in the United States," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 127-141, April.
    13. Sattler, Claudia & Trampnau, Susanne & Schomers, Sarah & Meyer, Claas & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: How do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 31-45.
    14. Lin, Yongsheng & Dong, Zhanfeng & Zhang, Wei & Zhang, Hongyu, 2020. "Estimating inter-regional payments for ecosystem services: Taking China’s Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region as an example," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    15. Liao, Ling & Diaz-Rainey, Ivan & Kuruppuarachchi, Duminda, 2025. "The interplay of carbon offset, renewable energy certificate and electricity markets in Australia," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    16. 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).
    17. Alireza Daneshi & Mostafa Panahi & Saber Masoomi & Mehdi Vafakhah & Hossein Azadi & Muhammad Mobeen & Pinar Gökcin Ozuyar & Vjekoslav Tanaskovik, 2021. "Assessment of non-monetary facilities in Urmia Lake basin under PES scheme: a rehabilitation solution for the dry lake in Iran," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(7), pages 10141-10172, July.
    18. Ovando, Paola & Castellazzi, Marie & Baggio-Compagnucci, Andrea & Hewitt, Richard J. & Gimona, Alessandro, 2025. "Feasibility of woodland expansion for carbon offsetting in Scotland revisited," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    19. Amendola, Marco, 2025. "Winners and losers of the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism. An intra-EU issue?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    20. Zhao, Yu & Gao, Gege & Zhang, Jixiang & Yu, Miao, 2024. "Impact of carbon tax on green building development: An evolutionary game analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:forpol:v:172:y:2025:i:c:s1389934125000292. 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.