IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v8y2019i3p119-d244296.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determining the Value of Soil Inorganic Carbon Stocks in the Contiguous United States Based on the Avoided Social Cost of Carbon Emissions

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)

  • Lisha Zhang

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

Abstract

Carbon sequestered as soil inorganic carbon (SIC) provides a regulating ecosystem service, which can be assigned a monetary value based on the avoided social cost of carbon (SC-CO 2 ). By definition, the SC-CO 2 is a measure, in dollars, of the long-term damage resulting from the emission of a metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). Therefore, this dollar figure also represents the value of damages avoided due to an equivalent reduction or sequestration of CO 2 . The objective of this study was to assess the value of SIC stocks in the contiguous United States (U.S.) by soil order, soil depth (0–20, 20–100, 100–200 cm), land resource region (LRR), state, and region using information from the State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) database together with a reported SC-CO 2 of $42 (U.S. dollars). With this approach, the calculated monetary value for total SIC storage in the contiguous U.S. was between $3.48T (i.e., $3.48 trillion U.S. dollars, where T = trillion = 10 12 ) and $14.4T, with a midpoint value of $8.34T. Soil orders with the highest (midpoint) values for SIC storage were: 1) Mollisols ($3.57T), 2) Aridisols ($1.99T), and 3) Alfisols ($841B) (i.e., $841B is 841 billion U.S. dollars, where B = billion = 10 9 ). When normalized by land area, the soil orders with the highest (midpoint) values for SIC storage were: 1) Vertisols ($3.57 m −2 ), 2) Aridisols ($2.45 m −2 ), and 3) Mollisols ($1.77 m −2 ). Most of the SIC value was associated with the 100–200 cm depth interval, with a midpoint value of $4T and an area-normalized value of $0.54 m −2 . The LRRs with the highest (midpoint) values of SIC storage were: 1) D—Western Range and Irrigated Region ($1.77T), 2) H—Central Great Plains Winter Wheat and Range Region ($1.49T), and 3) M—Central Feed Grains and Livestock Region ($1.02T). When normalized by land area, the LRRs were ranked: 1) I—Southwest Plateaus and Plains Range and Cotton Region ($5.36 m −2 ), 2) J—Southwestern Prairies Cotton and Forage Region ($4.56 m −2 ), and 3) H—Central Great Plains Winter Wheat and Range Region ($2.56 m −2 ). States with the highest (midpoint) values for SIC storage were: 1) Texas ($2.96T), 2) New Mexico ($572B), and 3) Montana ($524B). When normalized by land area, the states were ranked: 1) Texas ($4.47 m −2 ), 2) Utah ($2.77 m −2 ), and 3) Minnesota ($2.17 m −2 ). Lastly, regions with the highest (midpoint) values for SIC storage were: 1) South Central ($3.13T), 2) West ($1.98T), and 3) Northern Plains ($1.62T). When normalized by land area, the regions were ranked: 1) South Central ($2.90 m −2 ), 2) Midwest ($1.32 m −2 ), and 3) West ($1.02 m −2 ). Results from this study demonstrate a new approach for assigning monetary values to SIC stocks at various scales based on their role in providing ecosystem services for climate regulation and carbon sequestration.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:8:y:2019:i:3:p:119-:d:244296
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/8/3/119/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/8/3/119/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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. Elena A. Mikhailova & Lili Lin & Zhenbang Hao & Hamdi A. Zurqani & Christopher J. Post & Mark A. Schlautman & Gregory C. Post & George B. Shepherd, 2022. "Conflicts of Interest and Emissions from Land Conversions: State of New Jersey as a Case Study," Geographies, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-22, November.
    2. Elena A. Mikhailova & Hamdi A. Zurqani & Lili Lin & Zhenbang Hao & Christopher J. Post & Mark A. Schlautman & George B. Shepherd, 2023. "Opportunities for Monitoring Soil and Land Development to Support United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A Case Study of the United States of America (USA)," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, September.
    3. Philip C. Hutton & Elena A. Mikhailova & Lili Lin & Zhenbang Hao & Hamdi A. Zurqani & Christopher J. Post & Mark A. Schlautman & George B. Shepherd, 2022. "Net-Zero Target and Emissions from Land Conversions: A Case Study of Maryland’s Climate Solutions Now Act," Geographies, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-20, December.
    4. Elena A. Mikhailova & Garth R. Groshans & Christopher J. Post & Mark A. Schlautman & Gregory C. Post, 2019. "Valuation of Soil Organic Carbon Stocks in the Contiguous United States Based on the Avoided Social Cost of Carbon Emissions," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-15, August.
    5. Elena A. Mikhailova & Hamdi A. Zurqani & Lili Lin & Zhenbang Hao & Christopher J. Post & Mark A. Schlautman & Gregory C. Post & George B. Shepherd & Renee M. Dixon, 2023. "Quantifying Damages to Soil Health and Emissions from Land Development in the State of Illinois (USA)," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-21, August.
    6. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    5. 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.

    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:jresou:v:8:y:2019:i:3:p:119-:d:244296. 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.