Public willingness to pay for carbon farming and its co-benefits

Kragt, Marit; Gibson, Fiona; Maseyk, Fleur J. F.; Wilson, Kerrie A.

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.02.018

Cited by 41 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the course of agricultural emissions reduction, the three major mechanisms of incentive, tax, and compensation should be combined together to influence the agricultural production decision [5,18,23,37,38]. We establish the ecological compensation mechanism of agricultural carbon sinks based on the following aspects: the main body of compensation, the compensation principle, the compensation method, and the compensation standard, which is based on the ecological function of carbon sinks in agriculture.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agricultural Net Carbon Effect and Agricultural Carbon Sink Compensation Mechanism in Hotan Prefecture, China

Xiong¹,

Yang²,

Huo³

et al. 2017

Pol. J. Environ. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agriculture is one of the main sources of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on the earth, but it also serves as a carbon sink, which has great potential for greenhouse gas absorption. Based on the scientific calculation system of carbon emissions and carbon sinks in agriculture, we calculated the carbon emissions and carbon sinks of agriculture using data from Hotan Prefecture for the period 1999-2014. The results showed that the net carbon sink (total carbon sinks and total carbon emissions) showed a stable increase trend in Hotan during 1999-2014. The carbon sinks level of agriculture in Hotan prefecture is more than three times of that in China and more than two times that in Xinjiang. Thus, the agricultural carbon sinks function of Hotan is obvious. To realize sustainable agricultural development and to transform agricultural carbon sinks into the power to promote regional economic development, we established the ecological compensation mechanism of agricultural carbon sinks from the aspects of the main body of compensation, compensation principle, compensation method, and compensation standard within the premise of the ecological function of carbon sinks in agriculture. We use the net carbon sinks amount multiplied by the unit price of carbon sinks to obtain the amount of agricultural carbon sinks compensation in this paper. Compensation methods include government compensation and market compensation. Government compensation mainly comprises financial, material, policy, and technical compensation. Market compensation mainly uses the carbon trading platform to compensate for the net carbon sinks of agriculture.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agricultural Net Carbon Effect and Agricultural Carbon Sink Compensation Mechanism in Hotan Prefecture, China

Xiong¹,

Yang²,

Huo³

et al. 2017

Pol. J. Environ. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The simulation results suggest that future cabbage demand can be met even when 90% of all cabbage fields adopt low-carbon farming practices. However, a disadvantage is that low-carbon farming practices may lead to a loss in profit due to a decrease in crop yield [28].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mitigation of CO2 and N2O Emission from Cabbage Fields in Korea by Optimizing Tillage Depth and N-Fertilizer Level: DNDC Model Simulation under RCP 8.5 Scenario

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we applied the Denitrification and Decomposition model to predict the greenhouse gas (GHGs; CO2 and N2O) emissions and cabbage yields from 8072 cabbage fields in Korea in the 2020s and 2090s. Model outputs were evaluated as a function of tillage depth (T1, T2, and T3 for 10, 20, and 30 cm) and fertilizer level (F1, F2, and F3 for 100, 200, and 400 kg N ha−1) under the Representative Concentration Pathways 8.5 climate change scenario. For both time periods, CO2 emissions increased with tillage depth, and N2O emissions were predominantly influenced by the level of applied N-fertilizers. Both cabbage yields and GHGs fluxes were highest when the T3F3 farming practice was applied. Under current conventional farming practices (T1F3), cabbage yield was projected at 64.5 t ha−1 in the 2020s, which was close in magnitude to the predicted cabbage demand. In the 2090s, the predicted cabbage supply by the same practice far exceeded the projected demand at 28.9 t ha−1. Cabbage supply and demand were balanced and GHGs emissions reduced by 19.6% in the 2090s when 94% of the total cabbage farms adopted low carbon-farming practices (e.g., reducing fertilizer level). Our results demonstrate the large potential for Korean cabbage farms to significantly contribute towards the mitigation of GHGs emissions through the adoption of low-carbon farming practices. However, in order to incentivize the shift towards sustainable farming, we advise that lower yield and potential economic losses in farmlands from adopting low-carbon practices should be appropriately compensated by institutional policy.

show abstract

“…Moreover, crushing and adding carbon-binding and fertilizing silicate minerals (enhanced rock weathering) to arable land creates carbon sinks and may improve food security (Beerling, 2017). Furthermore, a choice experiment in Australia shows larger willingness to pay for carbon-sequestrating farming when associated with co-benefits in terms of increased area of native vegetation, but shows no support for practices that reduce soil erosion, which is less well-known (Kragt, Gibson, Maseyk, & Wilson, 2016).…”

Section: Improved Soil and Water Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate policy co-benefits: a review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concern over mitigation costs impedes the adoption of the climate policies needed to achieve agreed global warming targets. While costs are important to consider, so are benefits. However, the evidence for climate policy co-benefits, that is, the benefits in addition to avoided climate change costs, is commonly overlooked in policy-making. In many areas, the research is limited and not comprehensively synthesised. This article counters that problem and reviews 239 peer-reviewed articles, selected from 1,749 hits from a literature search covering 'co-benefits' and related terms. Aiming to aid policy-makers and to identify research gaps, we structure, describe, analyse and synthesize the rapidly expanding knowledge on climate policy co-benefits. Improved air quality is the co-benefit category dominating the literature, but studies covering a broad geographic range also focus on diet, physical activity, soil and water quality, biodiversity, economic performance, and energy security. In these areas, co-benefits are shown to be of substantial economic value, regarding air quality often of the same order of magnitude as mitigation costs, in some instances even larger. However, the share of studies quantifying or monetizing cobenefits is limited, and the empirical evidence is small, in particular for areas besides air quality and health. Furthermore, the knowledge is seldom used in policy-making, meaning that decision-making is often biased and overly concerned with costs, leading to suboptimal climate policies and goal failures. Evidently, more research is needed, as well as improved decision-making. Understanding and acting on climate policy co-benefits can promote policies that better mitigate climate change and improve overall welfare. Key policy insights. Climate policy co-benefits in well-researched fields such as air quality and health are large, often equalling or exceeding mitigation costs. . Despite their significance, co-benefits are seldom considered in decision-making, leading to biased policies and goal failures. . In several areas, such as diet and energy security, co-benefits are sparsely researched, but emerging evidence points to high values. . More research is needed, including on how to describe the total value of different co-benefits. . Improved processes, documentation requirements and criteria in decision-making are needed, in order to ensure that political decision-makers consider co-benefits. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Public willingness to pay for carbon farming and its co-benefits

Cited by 41 publications

References 25 publications

Agricultural Net Carbon Effect and Agricultural Carbon Sink Compensation Mechanism in Hotan Prefecture, China

Agricultural Net Carbon Effect and Agricultural Carbon Sink Compensation Mechanism in Hotan Prefecture, China

Mitigation of CO2 and N2O Emission from Cabbage Fields in Korea by Optimizing Tillage Depth and N-Fertilizer Level: DNDC Model Simulation under RCP 8.5 Scenario

Climate policy co-benefits: a review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About