IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v7y2018i4p149-d186879.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Value of Soil Inorganic Carbon for Ecosystem Services in the Contiguous United States Based on Liming Replacement Costs

Author

Listed:
  • Garth R. Groshans

    (Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA)

  • Elena A. Mikhailova

    (Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA)

  • Christopher J. Post

    (Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA)

  • Mark A. Schlautman

    (Department of Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, Clemson University, Anderson, SC 29625, USA)

  • Hamdi A. Zurqani

    (Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA
    Department of Soil and Water Sciences, University of Tripoli, Tripoli 13538, Libya)

  • Lisha Zhang

    (Agricultural Sciences Department, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA)

Abstract

Soil databases are very important for assessing ecosystem services at different administrative levels (e.g., state, region etc.). Soil databases provide information about numerous soil properties, including soil inorganic carbon (SIC), which is a naturally occurring liming material that regulates soil pH and performs other key functions related to all four recognized ecosystem services (e.g., provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services). However, the ecosystem services value, or “true value,” of SIC is not recognized in the current land market. In this case, a negative externality arises because SIC with a positive value has zero market price, resulting in the market failure and the inefficient use of land. One potential method to assess the value of SIC is by determining its replacement cost based on the price of commercial limestone that would be required to amend soil. The objective of this study is to assess SIC replacement cost value in the contiguous United States (U.S.) by depth (0–20, 20–100, 100–200 cm) and considering different spatial aggregation levels (i.e., state, region, land resource region (LRR) using the State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) soil database. A replacement cost value of SIC was determined based on an average price of limestone in 2014 ($10.42 per U.S. ton). Within the contiguous U.S., the total replacement cost value of SIC in the upper two meters of soil is between $2.16T (i.e., 2.16 trillion U.S. dollars, where T = trillion = 10 12 ) and $8.97T. States with the highest midpoint total value of SIC were: (1) Texas ($1.84T), (2) New Mexico ($355B, that is, 355 billion U.S. dollars, where B = billion = 10 9 ) and (3) Montana ($325B). When normalized by area, the states with the highest midpoint SIC values were: (1) Texas ($2.78 m −2 ), (2) Utah ($1.72 m −2 ) and (3) Minnesota ($1.35 m −2 ). The highest ranked regions for total SIC value were: (1) South Central ($1.95T), (2) West ($1.23T) and (3) Northern Plains ($1.01T), while the highest ranked regions based on area-normalized SIC value were: (1) South Central ($1.80 m −2 ), (2) Midwest ($0.82 m −2 ) and (3) West ($0.63 m −2 ). For land resource regions (LRR), the rankings were: (1) Western Range and Irrigated Region ($1.10T), (2) Central Great Plains Winter Wheat and Range Region ($926B) and (3) Central Feed Grains and Livestock Region ($635B) based on total SIC value, while the LRR rankings based on area-normalized SIC value were: (1) Southwest Plateaus and Plains Range and Cotton Region ($3.33 m −2 ), (2) Southwestern Prairies Cotton and Forage Region ($2.83 m −2 ) and (3) Central Great Plains Winter Wheat and Range Region ($1.59 m −2 ). Most of the SIC is located within the 100–200 cm depth interval with a midpoint replacement cost value of $2.49T and an area-normalized value of $0.34 m −2 . Results from this study provide a link between science-based estimates (e.g., soil order) of SIC replacement costs within the administrative boundaries (e.g., state, region etc.).

Suggested Citation

  • Garth R. Groshans & Elena A. Mikhailova & Christopher J. Post & Mark A. Schlautman & Hamdi A. Zurqani & Lisha Zhang, 2018. "Assessing the Value of Soil Inorganic Carbon for Ecosystem Services in the Contiguous United States Based on Liming Replacement Costs," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-12, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:7:y:2018:i:4:p:149-:d:186879
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/7/4/149/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/7/4/149/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dwyer, Gavan & Douglas, Robert A. & Peterson, Deborah C. & Chong, Joanne & Maddern, Kate, 2006. "Irrigation externalities: pricing and charges," Staff Working Papers 31923, Productivity Commission.
    2. Gavan Dwyer & Robert Douglas & Deb Peterson & Jo Chong & Kate Maddern, 2006. "Irrigation externalities: pricing and charges," Staff Working Papers 0603, Productivity Commission, Government of Australia.
    3. United Nations, 2016. "The Sustainable Development Goals 2016," Working Papers id:11456, eSocialSciences.
    4. Mueller, Hannah & Hamilton, David P. & Doole, Graeme J., 2016. "Evaluating services and damage costs of degradation of a major lake ecosystem," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 370-380.
    5. Marcelo Maciel & Luiz Rosa & Fernando Correa & Ursula Maruyama, 2012. "Energy, Pollutant Emissions and Other Negative Externality Savings from Curbing Individual Motorized Transportation (IMT): A Low Cost, Low Technology Scenario Analysis in Brazilian Urban Areas," Energies, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-27, March.
    6. Polasky, Stephen, 2008. "What's Nature Done for You Lately: Measuring the Value of Ecosystem Services," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 23(2), pages 1-5.
    7. ., 2017. "The concept of economic welfare," Chapters, in: Morality and Power, chapter 6, pages 59-68, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    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. Juan F. Velasco-Munoz & José A. Aznar-Sánchez & Marina Schoenemann & Belén López-Felices, 2022. "The economic valuation of ecosystem services: bibliometric analysis," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 13(4), pages 977-1014, December.
    2. Elena A. Mikhailova & Christopher J. Post & Mark A. Schlautman & Garth R. Groshans & Michael P. Cope & Lisha Zhang, 2019. "A Systems-Based Approach to Ecosystem Services Valuation of Various Atmospheric Calcium Deposition Flows," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-14, April.
    3. Elena A. Mikhailova & Hamdi A. Zurqani & Christopher J. Post & Mark A. Schlautman & Gregory C. Post, 2021. "Soil Diversity (Pedodiversity) and Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-34, March.
    4. Garth R. Groshans & Elena A. Mikhailova & Christopher J. Post & Mark A. Schlautman & Lisha Zhang, 2019. "Determining the Value of Soil Inorganic Carbon Stocks in the Contiguous United States Based on the Avoided Social Cost of Carbon Emissions," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-15, June.
    5. Elena A. Mikhailova & Garth R. Groshans & Christopher J. Post & Mark A. Schlautman & Gregory C. Post, 2019. "Valuation of Total Soil Carbon Stocks in the Contiguous United States Based on the Avoided Social Cost of Carbon Emissions," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-16, September.
    6. Hamdi A. Zurqani & Elena A. Mikhailova & Christopher J. Post & Mark A. Schlautman & Azzeddin R. Elhawej, 2019. "A Review of Libyan Soil Databases for Use within an Ecosystem Services Framework," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-30, May.

    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. R. Quentin Grafton & Karen Hussey, 2006. "Buying Back the Living Murray: At What Price?," Economics and Environment Network Working Papers 0606, Australian National University, Economics and Environment Network.
    2. Mallawaarachchi, Thilak & Auricht, Christopher & Loch, Adam & Adamson, David & Quiggin, John, 2020. "Water allocation in Australia’s Murray–Darling Basin: Managing change under heightened uncertainty," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 345-369.
    3. Productivity Commission, 2008. "Towards Urban Water Reform: A Discussion Paper," Research Papers 0801, Productivity Commission, Government of Australia.
    4. Ecker, Olivier & Hatzenbuehler, Patrick L. & Mahrt, Kristi, 2018. "Transforming agriculture for improving food and nutrition security among Nigerian farm households," NSSP working papers 56, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. Claudia Hanson & Sanni Kujala & Peter Waiswa & Tanya Marchant & Joanna Schellenberg, 2017. "Community-based approaches for neonatal survival: Meta-analyses of randomized trial data," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2017-137, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    6. Eugenia Ganea & Valentina Bodrug-Lungu, 2018. "Addressing Inequality in Vocational/ Technical Education by Eliminating Gender Bias," Revista romaneasca pentru educatie multidimensionala - Journal for Multidimensional Education, Editura Lumen, Department of Economics, vol. 10(4), pages 136-155, December.
    7. Gallopín, Gilberto, 2018. "Back to the future," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 318-324.
    8. Pandey, Shanta, 2017. "Persistent nature of child marriage among women even when it is illegal: The case of Nepal," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 242-247.
    9. OGUNNOWO, Fatai Abiodun & Prof. F. A. OKWO & JULIUS, Deborah Nwanne, 2023. "Availability and Utilization of Security Facilities in Federal Tertiary Institutions of Enugu State, Nigeria," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 7(5), pages 931-941, May.
    10. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    11. Victor Kasulo & Rochelle Holm & Mavuto Tembo & Wales Singini & Joshua Mchenga, 2020. "Enhancing sustainable sanitation through capacity building and rural sanitation marketing in Malawi," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 201-215, January.
    12. Fernanda Guedes & Alexandre Szklo & Pedro Rochedo & Frédéric Lantz & Leticia Magalar & Eveline Maria Vásquez Arroyo, 2018. "Climate-Energy-Water Nexus in Brazilian Oil Refineries," Working Papers hal-03188594, HAL.
    13. Alex. B. McBratney & Damien Field & Cristine L.S. Morgan & Jingyi Huang, 2019. "On Soil Capability, Capacity, and Condition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-11, June.
    14. Tiantian Zhai, 2021. "Environmental Challenges, Opportunities, and Policy Implications to Materialize China’s Green Belt and Road Initiative," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-14, September.
    15. Lana Krehic, 2022. "How do increases in electric vehicle use affect urban toll ring prices?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 193(3), pages 187-209, December.
    16. Wirapong Chansanam & Chunqiu Li, 2022. "Scientometrics of Poverty Research for Sustainability Development: Trend Analysis of the 1964–2022 Data through Scopus," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    17. -, 2021. "The 2020 census round: challenges of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Montevideo Consensus on Population and Development," Población y Desarrollo 46727, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    18. Jónsson, Jón Örvar G. & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Nikolaidis, Nikolaos P. & Giannakis, Georgios V., 2019. "Tools for Sustainable Soil Management: Soil Ecosystem Services, EROI and Economic Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 109-119.
    19. Shannon L. Sibbald & Nicole Haggerty, 2019. "Integrating Business and Medical Pedagogy to Accomplish the Sustainable Development Goals," Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, , vol. 13(1), pages 92-101, March.
    20. Rahi Jain & Prashant Narnaware, 2020. "Application of Systems Thinking to Dent Child Malnutrition: A Palghar District, India Case Study," Millennial Asia, , vol. 11(1), pages 79-98, April.

    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:gam:jlands:v:7:y:2018:i:4:p:149-:d:186879. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.