IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v54y2016icp29-37.html

What carbon farming activities are farmers likely to adopt? A best–worst scaling survey

Author

Listed:
  • Dumbrell, Nikki P.
  • Kragt, Marit E.
  • Gibson, Fiona L.

Abstract

Transferring carbon from the atmosphere into terrestrial sinks through carbon sequestration practices (so-called ‘carbon farming’) has been proposed as an important component in Australia’s efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. We use a Best–worst scaling survey to determine which carbon sequestration practices farmers would be most and least likely to adopt, and what factors were most important in any potential adoption decision. The survey was distributed to dryland cropping and mixed crop-livestock farmers in Western Australia. Farmers ranked improved soil quality and reduced soil erosion as the most important potential co-benefits of carbon farming. Factors discouraging farmers from participating in carbon farming contracts were policy and carbon price uncertainty and the uncertain impact of carbon farming practices on productivity and profitability. Farmers had strong preferences for stubble retention and no-till cropping practices as carbon farming strategies. The practices that farmers preferred least were applying biochar and planting trees. Farm and farmer characteristics, including (lack of) awareness of carbon farming policies and opinions about climate change, influence the potential willingness to adopt different carbon farming practices. Given recent policy uncertainty and farmer preferences revealed in this study, it is important to communicate potential co-benefits (rather than opportunities to earn compensation or carbon credits) to increase farmers’ engagement in carbon sequestration activities.

Suggested Citation

  • Dumbrell, Nikki P. & Kragt, Marit E. & Gibson, Fiona L., 2016. "What carbon farming activities are farmers likely to adopt? A best–worst scaling survey," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 29-37.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:54:y:2016:i:c:p:29-37
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.02.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837716000181
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.02.002?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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thiermann, Insa & Stagni, Francesco & Dries, Liesbeth, 2025. "Dutch farmers' views on public and private incentives for soil health improvements," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    2. Kim, Youngho & Newburn, David & Lichtenberg, Erik & Wietelman, Derek & Wang, Haoluan, 2025. "Emissions Trading Programs for Afforestation: Interactions with Federal Agricultural Conservation Programs," 2025 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2025, Denver, CO 360762, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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:lauspo:v:54:y:2016:i:c:p:29-37. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.