IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v7y2015i3p3311-3337d47043.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Willingness to Pay for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forests in Turkey

Author

Listed:
  • Ahmet Tolunay

    (Faculty of Forestry, Süleyman Demirel University, 32260 Isparta, Turkey)

  • Çağlar Başsüllü

    (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Sub-regional Office for Central Asia, 06170 Ankara, Turkey)

Abstract

Scientists express concern about increasing levels of greenhouse gases mainly due to fossil fuel consumption and deforestation. In response to the latter, policy-makers have introduced a range of policy measures to conserve and enhance forest ecosystems for carbon sequestration. The costs for policy measures to maintain ecosystem services can be calculated easily, but especially non-market/non-use benefits of forests are not easy to estimate. Economics can help designing climate change policies by eliciting public preferences on different attributes of climate change and carbon sequestration. This study was prepared for the purpose of identifying per capita consumer/equivalent surplus or maximum willingness to pay and the total economic value in relation to forests to be established in Turkey to reduce air pollution around cities, to prevent the adverse effects of climate change and to sequester carbon. The data for the estimation of maximum willingness to pay, total economic value and co-benefits of forests were collected with a questionnaire form prepared according to the contingent valuation method. Analyses have been conducted by correlation analysis and regression analysis. According to the analyses, per capita consumer/equivalent surplus or maximum willingness to pay to establish a new forest was estimated at US$ 23.52 on average, while total economic value was estimated at US$ 270,443,962.68.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahmet Tolunay & Çağlar Başsüllü, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forests in Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-27, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:7:y:2015:i:3:p:3311-3337:d:47043
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/3/3311/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/3/3311/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Amit K. Bhandari & Almas Heshmati, 2009. "Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation," TEMEP Discussion Papers 200938, Seoul National University; Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program (TEMEP), revised Dec 2009.
    2. Luke Brander & Raymond Florax & Jan Vermaat, 2006. "The Empirics of Wetland Valuation: A Comprehensive Summary and a Meta-Analysis of the Literature," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 33(2), pages 223-250, February.
    3. Jeff Bennett, 1996. "The Contingent Valuation Method: A Post-Kakadu Assessment," Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics, vol. 3(2), pages 185-194.
    4. Joo-Suk Lee & Seung-Hoon Yoo & Seung-Jun Kwak, 2010. "Public's willingness to pay for preventing climate change," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(6), pages 619-622.
    5. Akter, Sonia & Brouwer, Roy & Brander, Luke & van Beukering, Pieter, 2009. "Respondent uncertainty in a contingent market for carbon offsets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1858-1863, April.
    6. Berrens, Robert P. & Bohara, Alok K. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L. & Weimer, David L., 2004. "Information and effort in contingent valuation surveys: application to global climate change using national internet samples," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 331-363, March.
    7. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    8. MacKerron, George J. & Egerton, Catrin & Gaskell, Christopher & Parpia, Aimie & Mourato, Susana, 2009. "Willingness to pay for carbon offset certification and co-benefits among (high-)flying young adults in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1372-1381, April.
    9. Mohammed Belhaj, 2003. "Estimating the benefits of clean air contingent valuation and hedonic price methods," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(1), pages 30-46.
    10. Sonia Akter & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Household perceptions of climate change and preferences for mitigation action: the case of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 109(3), pages 417-436, December.
    11. Adaman, Fikret & KaralI, Nihan & Kumbaroglu, Gürkan & Or, Ilhan & Özkaynak, Begüm & Zenginobuz, Ünal, 2011. "What determines urban households' willingness to pay for CO2 emission reductions in Turkey: A contingent valuation survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 689-698, February.
    12. Paul R. Portney, 1994. "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 3-17, Fall.
    13. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    14. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    15. Tyrvainen, Liisa & Miettinen, Antti, 2000. "Property Prices and Urban Forest Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 205-223, March.
    16. Carson, Richard T., 1998. "Valuation of tropical rainforests: philosophical and practical issues in the use of contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 15-29, January.
    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. Ie Zheng Goh & Nitanan Koshy Matthew, 2021. "Residents’ Willingness to Pay for a Carbon Tax," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-25, September.
    2. Yanyun Zhao & Yongzhi Yan & Qingfu Liu & Frank Yonghong Li, 2018. "How Willing Are Herders to Participate in Carbon Sequestration and Mitigation? An Inner Mongolian Grassland Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-10, August.

    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. Alló, Maria & Loureiro, Maria L., 2014. "The role of social norms on preferences towards climate change policies: A meta-analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 563-574.
    2. Johannes Diederich & Timo Goeschl, 2014. "Willingness to Pay for Voluntary Climate Action and Its Determinants: Field-Experimental Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(3), pages 405-429, March.
    3. Diederich, Johannes & Goeschl, Timo, 2017. "To mitigate or not to mitigate: The price elasticity of pro-environmental behavior," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 209-222.
    4. Gupta, Monika, 2016. "Willingness to pay for carbon tax: A study of Indian road passenger transport," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 46-54.
    5. Salvador Del Saz-Salazar & Leandro Garcia-Menendez, 2001. "Willingness to Pay for Environmental Improvements in a Large City Evidence from The Spike Model and From a Non-Parametric Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(2), pages 103-112, October.
    6. Jens Abildtrup & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Suzanne Elizabeth Vedel & Udo Mantau & Robert Mavsar & Davide Pettenella & Irina Prokofieva & Florian Schubert & Anne Stenger & Elsa Varela & Enrico Vidale & , 2023. "Preferences for climate change policies: the role of co-benefits," Post-Print hal-04132398, HAL.
    7. Diederich, Johannes & Goeschl, Timo, 2011. "Willingness to Pay for Individual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions: Evidence from a Large Field Experiment," Working Papers 0517, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    8. Lim, Hea-Jin & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2014. "Train travel passengers' willingness to pay to offset their CO2 emissions in Korea," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 526-531.
    9. Shewmake, Sharon & Okrent, Abigail & Thabrew, Lanka & Vandenbergh, Michael, 2015. "Predicting consumer demand responses to carbon labels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 168-180.
    10. Uehleke, Reinhard, 2016. "The role of question format for the support for national climate change mitigation policies in Germany and the determinants of WTP," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 148-156.
    11. Menegaki, Angeliki, N. & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2016. "Towards a common standard – A reporting checklist for web-based stated preference valuation surveys and a critique for mode surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 18-50.
    12. Balderas Torres, Arturo & MacMillan, Douglas C. & Skutsch, Margaret & Lovett, Jon C., 2015. "Reprint of ‘Yes-in-my-backyard’: Spatial differences in the valuation of forest services and local co-benefits for carbon markets in México," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 283-294.
    13. Balderas Torres, Arturo & MacMillan, Douglas C. & Skutsch, Margaret & Lovett, Jon C., 2015. "‘Yes-in-my-backyard’: Spatial differences in the valuation of forest services and local co-benefits for carbon markets in México," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 130-141.
    14. John B. Loomis, 2013. "Incorporating distributional issues into benefit–cost analysis: why, how, and two empirical examples using non-market valuation," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 9, pages 294-316, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Lori D. Snyder & Robert N. Stavins & Alexander F. Wagner, 2003. "Private Options to Use Public Goods Exploiting Revealed Preferences to Estimate Environmental Benefits," Working Papers 2003.49, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    16. Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann & Raymond J. Kopp & Jon A. Krosnick & Robert Cameron Mitchell & Stanley Presser, 1998. "Referendum Design and Contingent Valuation: The NOAA Panel's No-Vote Recommendation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(2), pages 335-338, May.
    17. John C. Whitehead & Timothy C. Haab & Ju‐Chin Huang, 1998. "Part‐Whole Bias in Contingent Valuation: Will Scope Effects Be Detected with Inexpensive Survey Methods?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 160-168, July.
    18. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    19. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    20. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill & Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Mazur, Kasia, 2013. "Calibration of values in benefit transfer to account for variations in geographic scale and scope: Comparing two choice modelling experiments," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152176, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    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:jsusta:v:7:y:2015:i:3:p:3311-3337:d:47043. 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.