IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v178y2025ics1389934125001467.html

Current status of improved forest management carbon offset projects in the US voluntary market

Author

Listed:
  • Baral, Srijana
  • Lamichhane, Sabhyata
  • Koirala, Anil

Abstract

The voluntary forest carbon market facilitates the purchase and trade of carbon credits from forest-based projects for emission offsetting. Improved forest management (IFM) carbon projects have gained considerable attention for their potential to boost net carbon stocks and lower greenhouse gas emissions by altering business-as-usual forest management practices. Despite the rapid expansion of IFM projects, a comprehensive analysis of their status in the voluntary market is lacking. This study examines registered IFM projects in the US by collecting data on these projects from three public carbon registries: American Carbon Registry, Climate Action Reserve, and Verra. Findings show that nearly 2 million acres of forestland have been enrolled across 24 states. More than half of these projects are located in the Northern region and are primarily managed by private companies. Although the issuance of credits by carbon registries has risen in recent years, credit retirement has decreased. These findings underscore the need to better understand the flow and impacts of credits from forest-based projects on emission offsetting.

Suggested Citation

  • Baral, Srijana & Lamichhane, Sabhyata & Koirala, Anil, 2025. "Current status of improved forest management carbon offset projects in the US voluntary market," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:178:y:2025:i:c:s1389934125001467
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103567
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934125001467
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103567?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. 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.
    2. Li, Lili & Zhang, Daowei, 2024. "Forest carbon offset protocols in compliance carbon markets," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. Tzemi, Domna & Leppänen, Jussi & Autto, Hilja & Haltia, Emmi, 2025. "Finnish forest owners' willingness to participate in result-based carbon offset schemes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    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. 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).
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Balderas Torres, Arturo & MacMillan, Douglas C. & Skutsch, Margaret & Lovett, Jon C., 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services and rural development: Landowners' preferences and potential participation in western Mexico," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 72-81.
    12. Marissa Bongiovanni Schmitz & Erin Clover Kelly, 2016. "Ecosystem Service Commodification: Lessons from California," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(4), pages 90-110, November.
    13. Huff, Emily S. & Floress, Kristin & Snyder, Stephanie A. & Ma, Zhao & Butler, Sarah, 2019. "Where farm and forest meet: Comparing National Woodland Owner Survey respondents with and without farmland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    14. Michaela Perunová & Jarmila Zimmermannová & Tereza Schovánková, 2024. "Forest carbon and a regional perspective on the effectiveness of financial instruments within the forest bioeconomy," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 70(6), pages 317-334.
    15. Mäntymaa, Erkki & Juutinen, Artti & Tyrväinen, Liisa & Karhu, Jouni & Kurttila, Mikko, 2018. "Participation and compensation claims in voluntary forest landscape conservation: The case of the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area, Finland," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 14-24.
    16. Kilgore, Michael A. & Frey, Gregory E. & Snyder, Stephanie A. & Mihiar, Christopher, 2025. "Factors influencing a forest landowner's choice of incentive program commitment length," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    17. Josset, Clement & Shanafelt, David W. & Abildtrup, Jens & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Probabilistic typology of private forest owners: A tool to target the development of new market for ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    18. Giefer, Madeline M. & An, Li & Chen, Xiaodong, 2021. "Normative, livelihood, and demographic influences on enrollment in a payment for ecosystem services program," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    19. Anderson, Blake & M'Gonigle, Michael, 2012. "Does ecological economics have a future?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 37-48.
    20. Rabotyagov, Sergey S. & Lin, Sonja, 2013. "Small forest landowner preferences for working forest conservation contract attributes: A case of Washington State, USA," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 307-330.

    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:178:y:2025:i:c:s1389934125001467. 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.