IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0201967.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Small-scale forestry and carbon offset markets: An empirical study of Vermont Current Use forest landowner willingness to accept carbon credit programs

Author

Listed:
  • Alisa E White
  • David A Lutz
  • Richard B Howarth
  • José R Soto

Abstract

This study investigates the preferences of small forest landowners regarding forest carbon credit programs while documenting characteristics of potentially successful frameworks. We designed hypothetical carbon credit programs with aggregated carbon offset projects and requirements of existing voluntary and compliance protocols in mind. We administered a mail survey to 992 forest landowners in Vermont’s Current Use Program utilizing best-worst choice, a novel preference elicitation technique, to elicit their preferences about these programs. We found that small forest landowners see revenue as the most important factor in a carbon credit program and the duration of the program as the least important factor. Landowners reported that shorter program duration, higher revenue, and lower withdrawal penalties positively impact their willingness to accept forest carbon credit programs. Notably, our study includes carbon credit program implementer as a key program attribute, allowing us to quantify landowners’ tradeoffs between non-profit, for-profit, and government organizations. Overall, we found that landowners significantly prefer working with a non-profit organization. Based on monetary estimates of willingness-to-accept compensation, our results suggest that aggregated forest carbon offset projects incorporating small forest landowners could be piloted successfully in Vermont by non-profit organizations while maintaining relatively strict guidelines of existing carbon offset protocols.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0201967
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201967
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201967
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201967&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0201967?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Janota, Jessica J. & Broussard, Shorna R., 2008. "Examining private forest policy preferences," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 89-97, January.
    2. Loureiro, Maria L. & Dominguez Arcos, Fernando, 2012. "Applying Best–Worst Scaling in a stated preference analysis of forest management programs," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 381-394.
    3. Vithala R. Rao, 2014. "Applied Conjoint Analysis," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-540-87753-0, March.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, Enero-Abr.
    7. Greene,William H. & Hensher,David A., 2010. "Modeling Ordered Choices," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521194204, September.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Marissa Bongiovanni Schmitz & Erin Clover Kelly, 2016. "Ecosystem Service Commodification: Lessons from California," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(4), pages 90-110, November.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    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. Rui Sun & Dayi He & Jingjing Yan & Li Tao, 2021. "Mechanism Analysis of Applying Blockchain Technology to Forestry Carbon Sink Projects Based on the Differential Game Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-18, October.
    2. repec:ags:aaea22:335876 is not listed on IDEAS
    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).

    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. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Terry N. Flynn & Elisabeth Huynh & Tim J. Peters & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Sam Clemens & Alison Moody & Joanna Coast, 2015. "Scoring the Icecap‐a Capability Instrument. Estimation of a UK General Population Tariff," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 258-269, March.
    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. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    12. Simone Mueller & Larry Lockshin & Jordan Louviere, 2010. "What you see may not be what you get: Asking consumers what matters may not reflect what they choose," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 335-350, December.
    13. Macea, Luis F. & Cantillo, Victor & Arellana, Julian, 2018. "Influence of attitudes and perceptions on deprivation cost functions," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 125-141.
    14. Cooper, Bethany & Crase, Lin & Rose, John M., 2018. "Cost-reflective pricing: empirical insights into irrigators’ preferences for water tariffs," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 62(2), April.
    15. Roy Chowdhury, Pranab K. & Brown, Daniel G., 2023. "Modeling the effects of carbon payments and forest owner cooperatives on carbon storage and revenue in Pacific Northwest forestlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    16. 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.
    17. Côté, Elizabeth & Đukan, Mak & Pons-Seres de Brauwer, Cristian & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2022. "The price of actor diversity: Measuring project developers’ willingness to accept risks in renewable energy auctions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    18. 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.
    19. Huang, Youlin & Qian, Lixian & Tyfield, David & Soopramanien, Didier, 2021. "On the heterogeneity in consumer preferences for electric vehicles across generations and cities in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    20. T.N. Flynn & A.A.J. Marley, 2014. "Best-worst scaling: theory and methods," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 8, pages 178-201, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0201967. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.