Landowner attitudes and willingness to accept compensation from forest carbon offsets: Application of best–worst choice modeling in Florida USA

José R. Soto, Damian Adams and Francisco J. Escobedo

Forest Policy and Economics, 2016, vol. 63, issue C, 35-42

Abstract: Little is known about institutional preferences and barriers for non-industrial private forest landowner participation in carbon (C) offset programs — factors that influence participation in such programs. To address this, we used Florida (U.S.) as a case study, and identified barriers to forest landowner participation in a hypothetical carbon-offset program and landowner willingness-to-accept compensation for enrollment. Preferences were elicited via survey methods and a recent innovation to best–worst scaling (BWS), called best–worst choice (BWC), which retains the analytical features of scaling while enabling measurements in a traditional discrete-choice framework. Results indicate that NIPF landowners are more influenced by revenue than early withdrawal penalty or contract duration, but will exchange revenue for other contract features. We estimate that programs offering $20 or $30 per-acre-per-year have significantly stronger impacts on enrollment than $5 or $10. The least preferred feature was a 100-year commitment. Overall our BWC approach is novel in that it circumvents BWS' limitation by providing an ability to estimate actual willingness-to-pay/accept. The U.S. has a new policy to cut 32% of 2005 power plant carbon emissions by 2030 and allow forest C offsets. Thus, results can also be used to inform state-level policies that compensate landowners for capturing C emissions.

Keywords: Choice modeling; Best–worst scaling; Carbon offsets; Discrete choice; Non-industrial private forest; Willingness to accept (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (16)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934115300757
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:forpol:v:63:y:2016:i:c:p:35-42

DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.12.004

Access Statistics for this article

Forest Policy and Economics is currently edited by M. Krott

More articles in Forest Policy and Economics from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().