Forest Landowners' Willingness to Sell Carbon Credits: A Pilot Study

Abstract

Sequestered carbon is a new forest product that could help private forest owners earn financial returns while keeping their forests intact. Private forest owners are responsible for 78% of forests in Massachusetts, and the carbon these trees sequester could be traded in emerging cap-and-trade carbon markets in the United States. In forming policy about climate change and forestry, it is important to understand the factors that influence the likelihood of landowners choosing to sell sequestered carbon and participate in the carbon marketplace. In this pilot study, we explored the likelihood of Massachusetts forest owners selling carbon sequestered on their forestland. We found that landowners significantly favor higher payments, no withdrawal penalty, and, unexpectedly, longer time commitments. We also found that at current carbon prices, very few participants (less than 7%) would be willing to sell. Additional studies need to be conducted, with a larger sample of respondents, which may elucidate how socioeconomic variables and ownership attitudes influence forest owners' willingness to enroll in carbon markets.

Norwegian family forest owners' willingness to participate in carbon offset programs

“…Additionally, several landowner characteristics were found not to be significant predictors of participation. Although landowners with a long land tenure were not found to be significantly less interested in participating as hypothesized, some other studies have also found length of ownership to not influence participation in carbon programs (Fletcher et al 2009;Thompson and Hansen 2012). Familiarity with managing forests for carbon was also not found to be a significant predictor of participation.…”

“…Previous studies on carbon programs and incentive programs for other ecosystem services suggest that payment amount and contract length are important program characteristics and were included in the model. Several studies have demonstrated a positive relationship between the payment amount offered and participation (Dickinson et al 2012;Fletcher et al 2009;Kilgore et al 2008a;Kline et al 2000;Layton and Siikamäki 2009;Markowski-Lindsay et al 2011;Miller et al 2012;Rabotyagov and Lin 2013;Sullivan et al 2005). Payment amount (PAYMENT) was therefore hypothesized to have a positive effect on participation.…”

“…Only a handful of studies have quantitatively examined factors that influence family forest owner interest in participating in carbon offset programs. Three of these were carried out in Massachusetts, the first being a pilot study conducted by Fletcher et al (2009), which was expanded on by Dickinson (2010) and Markowski-Lindsay et al (2011). The studies used mail surveys to ask respondents to rate various hypothetical carbon sequestration programs according to how likely they would be to enroll the program.…”

Estimating Above-Ground Carbon Biomass in a Newly Restored Coastal Plain Wetland Using Remote Sensing

“…The United Nation’s REDD program as well as recent proposals in the United States for a carbon offset market are examples of such programs. Broadly speaking, they aim to promote conservation by placing a monetary value on the carbon sequestration services provided by healthy ecosystems [4], [5], [6].…”

Forest owners’ views on storing carbon in their forests

“…This has often been identified as an important factor in the previous literature (e.g. Horne 2006;Fletcher et al 2009;Markowski-Lindsay et al 2011;Miller et al 2012;Dickinson et al 2012;Håbesland et al 2016;Latta et al 2016;Khanal et al 2017). However, the forest owners had doubts about whether the compensation fully covers the costs of participation or the lost income from timber sales.…”