IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea06/21288.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What motivates farmers to sequester carbon: an empirical investigation

Author

Listed:
  • Ovchinnikova, Natalia
  • Lynne, Gary D.
  • Sautter, John
  • Kruse, Colby

Abstract

The overall impetus for this research comes from the concern with global warming and climate change. Although the U.S. did not sign the Kyoto Protocol, a study conducted by London's Carbon Disclosure Project has shown that many U.S. firms are preparing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Also, agriculture can help to dampen the pace of warming through sequestering carbon in agricultural plants and land. The purpose of the article is to discover what motivates the implementation of conservation tillage which allows greater carbon sequestration. The survey data (1185 self-report questionnaires, 28 percent response rate) were collected from farmers in a midwestern U.S. state in three types of agro-ecozones. Econometric analysis provided support for the dual-interest approach (metaeconomic) in explaining carbon sequestration. Results showed that farmers, who condition their pursuit of self-interest with shared concerns, are using carbon sequestration technologies more widely. However, the more a farmer prefers to have control over the farming process and financial risks, the less likely he adopts conservation tillage. The proposed recommendations for the environmental and conservation policy makers include: to increase awareness of farmers on the positive facts of sequestration (including both long run private benefits and the "greater good" for humanity); encourage commitment by acknowledging its role; install social sanctions in the background to keep the commitment operant; and provide ways for farmers to donate or sell their carbon offsets at a reduced price to the environmental agencies. This would allow decreasing direct financial costs of governmental programs, increasing the pace of carbon retirement, and ultimately facilitating the formation of an effective carbon emissions trading scheme.

Suggested Citation

  • Ovchinnikova, Natalia & Lynne, Gary D. & Sautter, John & Kruse, Colby, 2006. "What motivates farmers to sequester carbon: an empirical investigation," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21288, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea06:21288
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.21288
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/21288/files/sp06ov01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.21288?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. Sam Cordes & John Allen & Richard C. Bishop & Gary D. Lynne & Lindon J. Robison & Vernon D. Ryan & Ron Shaffer, 2003. "Social Capital, Attachment Value, and Rural Development: A Conceptual Framework and Application of Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1201-1207.
    2. Lynne, Gary D. & Casey, C. Franklin, 1998. "Regulation of technology adoption when individuals pursue multiple utility," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 701-719.
    3. Peter J. Parks & Ian W. Hardie, 1995. "Least-Cost Forest Carbon Reserves: Cost-Effective Subsidies to Convert Marginal Agricultural Land to Forests," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(1), pages 122-136.
    4. Oscar J. Cacho & Robyn L. Hean & Russell M. Wise, 2003. "Carbon‐accounting methods and reforestation incentives," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(2), pages 153-179, June.
    5. Lynne, Gary D., 1995. "Modifying the Neo-Classical Approach to Technology Adoption With Behavioral Science Models," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 67-80, July.
    6. Henrich, Joseph & Boyd, Robert & Bowles, Samuel & Camerer, Colin & Fehr, Ernst & Gintis, Herbert (ed.), 2004. "Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199262052.
    7. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    8. Darius M. Adams & Ralph J. Alig & DBruce A. McCarl & John M. Callaway & Steven M. Winnett, 1999. "Minimum Cost Strategies for Sequestering Carbon in Forests," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(3), pages 360-374.
    9. Lynne, Gary D., 1999. "Divided self models of the socioeconomic person: the metaeconomics approach," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 267-288.
    10. John M. Antle & Bocar Diagana, 2003. "Creating Incentives for the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Developing Countries: The Role of Soil Carbon Sequestration," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1178-1184.
    11. Andrew J. Plantinga & JunJie Wu, 2003. "Co-Benefits from Carbon Sequestration in Forests: Evaluating Reductions in Agricultural Externalities from an Afforestation Policy in Wisconsin," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(1), pages 74-85.
    12. Brent Sohngen & Robert Mendelsohn, 2003. "An Optimal Control Model of Forest Carbon Sequestration," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 448-457.
    13. Rabin, Matthew, 1993. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1281-1302, December.
    14. Linda M. Young, 2003. "Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture: The U.S. Policy Context," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1164-1170.
    15. Lynne, Gary D., 1995. "Modifying The Neo-Classical Approach To Technology Adoption With Behavioral Science Models," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(1), pages 1-14, July.
    16. Robert N. Stavins, 1999. "The Costs of Carbon Sequestration: A Revealed-Preference Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(4), pages 994-1009, September.
    17. Gary D. Lynne, 2002. "Agricultural Industrialization: A Metaeconomics Look at the Metaphors by which we Live," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 410-427.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. van Kooten, G. Cornelis & Sohngen, Brent, 2007. "Economics of Forest Ecosystem Carbon Sinks: A Review," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 1(3), pages 237-269, September.
    2. Czap, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J. & Khachaturyan, Marianna & Lynne, Gary D. & Burbach, Mark, 2012. "Walking in the shoes of others: Experimental testing of dual-interest and empathy in environmental choice," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 642-653.
    3. G. Cornelis van Kooten & Susanna Laaksonen-Craig & Yichuan Wang, 2007. "Costs of Creating Carbon Offset Credits via Forestry Activities: A Meta-Regression Analysis," Working Papers 2007-03, University of Victoria, Department of Economics, Resource Economics and Policy Analysis Research Group.
    4. Chouinard, Hayley H. & Wandschneider, Philip R. & Paterson, Tobias, 2016. "Inferences from sparse data: An integrated, meta-utility approach to conservation research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 71-78.
    5. Latta, Gregory & Adams, Darius M. & Alig, Ralph J. & White, Eric, 2011. "Simulated effects of mandatory versus voluntary participation in private forest carbon offset markets in the United States," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 127-141, April.
    6. Im, Eun Ho & Adams, Darius M. & Latta, Gregory S., 2007. "Potential impacts of carbon taxes on carbon flux in western Oregon private forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 1006-1017, May.
    7. Hediger, Werner, 2009. "The non-permanence of optimal soil carbon sequestration," 83rd Annual Conference, March 30 - April 1, 2009, Dublin, Ireland 51057, Agricultural Economics Society.
    8. Kim, Taeyoung & Langpap, Christian, 2016. "Agricultural landowners’ response to incentives for afforestation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 93-111.
    9. Monge, Juan J. & Bryant, Henry L. & Gan, Jianbang & Richardson, James W., 2016. "Land use and general equilibrium implications of a forest-based carbon sequestration policy in the United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 102-120.
    10. David Walker, 2014. "The Economic Potential for Forest-Based Carbon Sequestration under Different Emissions Targets and Accounting Schemes," Working Papers 2014.02, School of Economics, La Trobe University.
    11. Charles A. Zelek & Gerald E. Shively, 2003. "Measuring the Opportunity Cost of Carbon Sequestration in Tropical Agriculture," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(3), pages 342-354.
    12. Jung, Martina, 2003. "The Role of Forestry Sinks in the CDM - Analysing the Effects of Policy Decisions on the Carbon Market," Discussion Paper Series 26293, Hamburg Institute of International Economics.
    13. Pena-Levano, Luis & Taheripour, Farzad & Tyner, Wally, 2020. "Cost comparison of climate change mitigation options," Conference papers 333134, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    14. van Kooten, G. Cornelis & Eagle, Alison J. & Manley, James G. & Smolak, Tara M., 2004. "How Costly Are Carbon Offsets? A Meta-Analysis Of Carbon Forest Sinks," Working Papers 18166, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    15. Herath, N. & Tyner, W.E., 2019. "Intended and unintended consequences of US renewable energy policies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    16. Zhang, Zhenyu & Lynne, Gary D., 2006. "Is Individual Behavior Oriented to Self-interest, Other-interest or both? Empirical Evidence from a Case Study of Social Capital," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21198, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    17. Ion Lucian Ceapraz & Catherine Delhoume, 2017. "How Social Capital Can Improve The Territorial Innovation? The Case Of The French Agriculture. Some Conceptual Issues," Post-Print hal-04359913, HAL.
    18. Jepkemei, Busienei Vivian, 2010. "Potential Economic Value Of Carbon Sequestration In Kakamega Forest And Surrounding Farms," Research Theses 117803, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    19. Latta, Gregory S. & Adams, Darius M. & Bell, Kathleen P. & Kline, Jeffrey D., 2016. "Evaluating land-use and private forest management responses to a potential forest carbon offset sales program in western Oregon (USA)," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 1-8.
    20. Feng, Hongli, 2005. "The dynamics of carbon sequestration and alternative carbon accounting, with an application to the upper Mississippi River Basin," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 23-35, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    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:ags:aaea06:21288. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.