IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consequences of Co-benefits for the Efficient Design of Carbon Sequestration Programs, The



In this paper, we study the social efficiency of private carbon markets that include trading in agricultural soil carbon sequestration when there are significant co-benefits (positive environmental externalities) associated with the practices that sequester carbon. Likewise, we investigate the efficiency of government-run conservation programs that are designed to promote a broad array of environmental attributes (both carbon sequestration and its co-benefits) for the supply of carbon. Finally, policy design and efficiency issues associated with the potential interplay between a private carbon market and a government conservation program are studied. Empirical analyses for an area that represents a significant potential source of carbon sequestration and its associated co-benefits illustrate the magnitude and complexity of these issues in real-world policy design.

Suggested Citation

  • Hongli Feng & Catherine L. Kling, 2005. "Consequences of Co-benefits for the Efficient Design of Carbon Sequestration Programs, The," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 05-wp390, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
  • Handle: RePEc:ias:cpaper:05-wp390

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    File Function: Online Synopsis
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Burtraw, Dallas & Krupnick, Alan & Palmer, Karen & Paul, Anthony & Toman, Michael & Bloyd, Cary, 2003. "Ancillary benefits of reduced air pollution in the US from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the electricity sector," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 650-673, May.
    2. Butt, Tanveer A. & McCarl, Bruce A., 2004. "Farm and Forest Carbon Sequestration: Can Producers Employ it to Make Some Money?," Choices, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 19(3).
    3. Hongli Feng, 2005. "Dynamics of Carbon Sequestration and Alternative Carbon Accounting, with an Application to the Upper Mississippi River Basin, The," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 05-wp386, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    4. Feng, Hongli & Zhao, Jinhua & Kling, Catherine L., 2002. "Time Path and Implementation of Carbon Sequestration (The)," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5068, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    5. 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.
    6. Hongli Feng & Lyubov A. Kurkalova & Catherine L. Kling & Philip W. Gassman, 2004. "Environmental Conservation in Agriculture: Land Retirement versus Changing Practices on Working Land," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 04-wp365, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Neuman, Amber D. & Belcher, Ken W., 2011. "The contribution of carbon-based payments to wetland conservation compensation on agricultural landscapes," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 75-81, January.
    2. Kovacs, Kent F. & Haight, Robert G. & Jung, Suhyun & Locke, Dexter H. & O'Neil-Dunne, Jarlath, 2013. "The marginal cost of carbon abatement from planting street trees in New York City," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 1-10.
    3. Glenk, Klaus & Shrestha, Shailesh & Topp, Cairstiona F.E. & Sánchez, Berta & Iglesias, Ana & Dibari, Camilla & Merante, Paolo, 2017. "A farm level approach to explore farm gross margin effects of soil organic carbon management," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 33-46.

    More about this item


    average ranking of benefits; carbon markets; carbon sequestration; co-benefits; conservation programs; the Upper Mississippi River Basin.;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:ias:cpaper:05-wp390. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.