Small-scale forestry and carbon offset markets: An empirical study of Vermont Current Use forest landowner willingness to accept carbon credit programs

PLoS One. 2018 Aug 14;13(8):e0201967. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201967. eCollection 2018.

Abstract

This study investigates the preferences of small forest landowners regarding forest carbon credit programs while documenting characteristics of potentially successful frameworks. We designed hypothetical carbon credit programs with aggregated carbon offset projects and requirements of existing voluntary and compliance protocols in mind. We administered a mail survey to 992 forest landowners in Vermont's Current Use Program utilizing best-worst choice, a novel preference elicitation technique, to elicit their preferences about these programs. We found that small forest landowners see revenue as the most important factor in a carbon credit program and the duration of the program as the least important factor. Landowners reported that shorter program duration, higher revenue, and lower withdrawal penalties positively impact their willingness to accept forest carbon credit programs. Notably, our study includes carbon credit program implementer as a key program attribute, allowing us to quantify landowners' tradeoffs between non-profit, for-profit, and government organizations. Overall, we found that landowners significantly prefer working with a non-profit organization. Based on monetary estimates of willingness-to-accept compensation, our results suggest that aggregated forest carbon offset projects incorporating small forest landowners could be piloted successfully in Vermont by non-profit organizations while maintaining relatively strict guidelines of existing carbon offset protocols.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Carbon* / chemistry
  • Conservation of Natural Resources
  • Forestry*
  • Forests*
  • Models, Econometric
  • Vermont

Substances

  • Carbon

Grants and funding

The funding for this study was provided entirely by Dartmouth College. The funding amount was $5,000 and came from four different funding sources within the College. The majority of the funding, $3,500, was provided by the Dartmouth Outdoor Programs Office Northern Studies Grant. The remaining funds were provided by the Nelson A. Rockefeller Center's Senior Honors Thesis Grant, Undergraduate Advising and Research, and the Environmental Studies Program. All funding was received by author Alisa E. White. The Northern Studies Grant website is here: http://outdoors.dartmouth.edu/doc/funding/northstudy.html. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or the preparation of the manuscript.