IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v63y2016icp35-42.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Landowner attitudes and willingness to accept compensation from forest carbon offsets: Application of best–worst choice modeling in Florida USA

Author

Listed:
  • Soto, José R.
  • Adams, Damian C.
  • Escobedo, Francisco J.

Abstract

Little is known about institutional preferences and barriers for non-industrial private forest landowner participation in carbon (C) offset programs — factors that influence participation in such programs. To address this, we used Florida (U.S.) as a case study, and identified barriers to forest landowner participation in a hypothetical carbon-offset program and landowner willingness-to-accept compensation for enrollment. Preferences were elicited via survey methods and a recent innovation to best–worst scaling (BWS), called best–worst choice (BWC), which retains the analytical features of scaling while enabling measurements in a traditional discrete-choice framework. Results indicate that NIPF landowners are more influenced by revenue than early withdrawal penalty or contract duration, but will exchange revenue for other contract features. We estimate that programs offering $20 or $30 per-acre-per-year have significantly stronger impacts on enrollment than $5 or $10. The least preferred feature was a 100-year commitment. Overall our BWC approach is novel in that it circumvents BWS' limitation by providing an ability to estimate actual willingness-to-pay/accept. The U.S. has a new policy to cut 32% of 2005 power plant carbon emissions by 2030 and allow forest C offsets. Thus, results can also be used to inform state-level policies that compensate landowners for capturing C emissions.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:63:y:2016:i:c:p:35-42
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.12.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934115300757
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.12.004?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. 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. Dan Rigby & Michael Burton & Jayson L. Lusk, 2015. "Journals, Preferences, and Publishing in Agricultural and Environmental Economics," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(2), pages 490-509.
    4. Jayson L. Lusk & Brian C. Briggeman, 2009. "Food Values," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(1), pages 184-196.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Oleson, Kirsten L.L. & Barnes, Michele & Brander, Luke M. & Oliver, Thomas A. & van Beek, Ingrid & Zafindrasilivonona, Bienvenue & van Beukering, Pieter, 2015. "Cultural bequest values for ecosystem service flows among indigenous fishers: A discrete choice experiment validated with mixed methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 104-116.
    8. Lusk, Jayson L. & Parker, Natalie, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Amount and Type of Fat in Ground Beef," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(1), pages 75-90, April.
    9. 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.
    10. German Rodriguez & Irma Elo, 2003. "Intra-class correlation in random-effects models for binary data," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 3(1), pages 32-46, March.
    11. Jennifer A. Whitty & Julie Ratcliffe & Gang Chen & Paul A. Scuffham, 2014. "Australian Public Preferences for the Funding of New Health Technologies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(5), pages 638-654, July.
    12. Aanesen, Margrethe & Armstrong, Claire & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Falk-Petersen, Jannike & Hanley, Nick & Navrud, Ståle, 2015. "Willingness to pay for unfamiliar public goods: Preserving cold-water coral in Norway," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 53-67.
    13. 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.
    14. Danny Campbell & Seda Erdem, 2015. "Position Bias in Best-worst Scaling Surveys: A Case Study on Trust in Institutions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(2), pages 526-545.
    15. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    16. Lusk, Jayson L. & Briggeman, Brian C., 2008. "AJAE appendix for “Food Values”," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(1), pages 1-12, February.
    17. 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.
    18. Foster, Vivien & Mourato, Susana, 2002. "Testing for Consistency in Contingent Ranking Experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 309-328, September.
    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. Carriazo, Fernando & Labarta, Ricardo & Escobedo, Francisco J., 2020. "Incentivizing sustainable rangeland practices and policies in Colombia’s Orinoco region," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    2. Soto, José R. & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Khachatryan, Hayk & Adams, Damian C., 2018. "Consumer demand for urban forest ecosystem services and disservices: Examining trade-offs using choice experiments and best-worst scaling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 31-39.
    3. Mishra, Bijesh, 2022. "Economics and human dimension of active management of forest-grassland ecotone in South-central USA under changing climate," MPRA Paper 116200, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 30 Jul 2022.
    4. Ivan Sever & Miroslav Verbič & Eva Klaric Sever, 2020. "Estimating Attribute-Specific Willingness-to-Pay Values from a Health Care Contingent Valuation Study: A Best–Worst Choice Approach," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 97-107, February.
    5. Aizaki, Hideo & Fogarty, James, 2019. "An R package and tutorial for case 2 best–worst scaling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Soto, José & Escobedo, Francisco & Adams, Damian, 2016. "Public and Private Preferences for Urban Forest Ecosystem Services," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236232, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. 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.
    10. Wang, Tong & Jin, Hailong & Clay, David E., 2023. "Factors affecting farmers’ willingness to accept for carbon farming in the U.S. Midwest," 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23-25, Washington D.C. 335876, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. 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).
    12. 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.
    13. Susaeta, Andres & Adams, Damian C. & Gonzalez-Benecke, Carlos, 2017. "Economic vulnerability of southern US slash pine forests to climate change," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 18-32.

    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. Soto, José & Escobedo, Francisco & Adams, Damian, 2016. "Public and Private Preferences for Urban Forest Ecosystem Services," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236232, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Soto, José R. & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Khachatryan, Hayk & Adams, Damian C., 2018. "Consumer demand for urban forest ecosystem services and disservices: Examining trade-offs using choice experiments and best-worst scaling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 31-39.
    7. Stephanie Knox & Rosalie Viney & Deborah Street & Marion Haas & Denzil Fiebig & Edith Weisberg & Deborah Bateson, 2012. "What’s Good and Bad About Contraceptive Products?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(12), pages 1187-1202, December.
    8. Danny Campbell & Seda Erdem, 2015. "Position Bias in Best-worst Scaling Surveys: A Case Study on Trust in Institutions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(2), pages 526-545.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Erdem, Seda & Rigby, Dan, 2011. "Using Best Worst Scaling To Investigate Perceptions Of Control & Concern Over Food And Non-Food Risks," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108790, Agricultural Economics Society.
    12. Marti, Joachim, 2012. "A best–worst scaling survey of adolescents' level of concern for health and non-health consequences of smoking," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 87-97.
    13. Sackett, Hillary M. & Shupp, Robert & Tonsor, Glynn, 2013. "Consumer Perceptions of Sustainable Farming Practices: A Best-Worst Scenario," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(2), pages 275-290, August.
    14. McKendree, Melissa G.S. & Tonsor, Glynn T. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2015. "Similarities and Differences of Animal Welfare Perceptions between U.S. Cow-Calf Producers and the Public," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205433, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Yoo, Hong Il & Doiron, Denise, 2013. "The use of alternative preference elicitation methods in complex discrete choice experiments," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1166-1179.
    16. Wolf, Christopher A. & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2013. "Dairy Farmer Policy Preferences," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-15, August.
    17. 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.
    18. Sackett, Hillary & Shupp, Robert & Tonsor, Glynn, 2016. "Differentiating “Sustainable” From “Organic” And “Local” Food Choices: Does Information About Certification Criteria Help Consumers?," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 4(3), pages 1-15, July.
    19. 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.
    20. Holland, Jacqueline K. & Olynk Widmar, Nicole J. & Widmar, David A. & Ortega, David L. & Gunderson, Michael A., 2014. "Understanding Producer Strategies: Identifying Key Success Factors of Commercial Farms in 2013," 2014 Annual Meeting, February 1-4, 2014, Dallas, Texas 162422, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.

    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:63:y:2016:i:c:p:35-42. 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.