IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i21p11697-d662734.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mechanism Analysis of Applying Blockchain Technology to Forestry Carbon Sink Projects Based on the Differential Game Model

Author

Listed:
  • Rui Sun

    (School of Economics and Management, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Dayi He

    (School of Economics and Management, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Jingjing Yan

    (School of Economics and Management, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Li Tao

    (School of Economics and Management, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China)

Abstract

As an important way to reduce emission, forestry carbon sink (FCS) has not been implemented effectively. Therefore, this paper aims to analyze the effectiveness and mechanism of applying blockchain technology in FCS projects by utilizing the differential game model. A Stackelberg differential game model between forest farmers and emission-controlled enterprises (ECEs) is developed to analyze the optimal emission reduction efforts and the optimal trajectory of forest farmers and ECEs before and after introducing blockchain technology. It is found that: (1) At the initial stage of the utilization of blockchain technology, if blockchain technology takes a leading role in stabilizing carbon prices, the ECEs prefer to purchase FCS instead of reducing emissions by their own technology. On the contrary, if blockchain technology takes a leading role in stimulating the vitality of the carbon trading market, ECEs tend to use emission abatement technology to meet the carbon quote requirements. (2) In the later stage, the incentive and stabilizing effects of blockchain technology on carbon prices tend to be balanced, and the emission reduction efforts of ECEs are lower than the efforts before applying blockchain technology. (3) The application of blockchain technology increases forest farmers’ willingness to reduce emissions because of its effection of cost reduction and efficiency improvement. Meanwhile, blockchain technology reduces abatement costs by influencing carbon prices. Therefore, blockchain technology improves forest farmers’ emission reduction efforts on the whole.

Suggested Citation

  • Rui Sun & Dayi He & Jingjing Yan & Li Tao, 2021. "Mechanism Analysis of Applying Blockchain Technology to Forestry Carbon Sink Projects Based on the Differential Game Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-18, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:21:p:11697-:d:662734
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/21/11697/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/21/11697/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elkhan Richard Sadik-Zada, 2020. "Distributional Bargaining and the Speed of Structural Change in the Petroleum Exporting Labor Surplus Economies," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 32(1), pages 51-98, January.
    2. Caulkins, Jonathan P. & Feichtinger, Gustav & Grass, Dieter & Hartl, Richard F. & Kort, Peter M. & Seidl, Andrea, 2017. "Interaction of pricing, advertising and experience quality: A dynamic analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 256(3), pages 877-885.
    3. Mark R. Gleim & Jennifer L. Stevens, 2021. "Blockchain: a game changer for marketers?," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 123-128, March.
    4. Per Gundersen & Emil E. Thybring & Thomas Nord-Larsen & Lars Vesterdal & Knute J. Nadelhoffer & Vivian K. Johannsen, 2021. "Old-growth forest carbon sinks overestimated," Nature, Nature, vol. 591(7851), pages 21-23, March.
    5. Shangrong Jiang & Yuze Li & Quanying Lu & Yongmiao Hong & Dabo Guan & Yu Xiong & Shouyang Wang, 2021. "Policy assessments for the carbon emission flows and sustainability of Bitcoin blockchain operation in China," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, December.
    6. Lin, Boqiang & Ge, Jiamin, 2021. "Does institutional freedom matter for global forest carbon sinks in the face of economic development disparity?," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    7. Alisa E White & David A Lutz & Richard B Howarth & José R Soto, 2018. "Small-scale forestry and carbon offset markets: An empirical study of Vermont Current Use forest landowner willingness to accept carbon credit programs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-24, August.
    8. Elkhan Richard Sadik-Zada, 2021. "An Ode to ODA against all Odds? A Novel Game-Theoretical and Empirical Reappraisal of the Terrorism-Aid Nexus," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 49(2), pages 221-240, June.
    9. Chuang, Tsai-Jen & Yen, Tian-Ming, 2017. "Public views on the value of forests in relation to forestation projects—A case study in central Taiwan," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 173-179.
    10. Hua, Weiqi & Jiang, Jing & Sun, Hongjian & Wu, Jianzhong, 2020. "A blockchain based peer-to-peer trading framework integrating energy and carbon markets," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    11. Michael Wang & Bill Wang & Ahmad Abareshi, 2020. "Blockchain Technology and Its Role in Enhancing Supply Chain Integration Capability and Reducing Carbon Emission: A Conceptual Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-17, December.
    12. Sam Hartmann & Sebastian Thomas, 2020. "Applying Blockchain to the Australian Carbon Market," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 39(2), pages 133-151, June.
    13. Khanal, Puskar N. & Grebner, Donald L. & Straka, Thomas J. & Adams, Damian C., 2019. "Obstacles to participation in carbon sequestration for nonindustrial private forest landowners in the southern United States: A diffusion of innovations perspective," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 95-101.
    14. Ye Song & Hongjun Peng, 2019. "Strategies of Forestry Carbon Sink under Forest Insurance and Subsidies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-13, August.
    15. Lingling Qiu & Weizhong Zeng & Shashi Kant & Sen Wang, 2021. "The Role of Social Capital in Rural Households’ Perceptions toward the Benefits of Forest Carbon Sequestration Projects: Evidence from a Rural Household Survey in Sichuan and Yunnan Provinces, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-16, January.
    16. Khaqqi, Khamila Nurul & Sikorski, Janusz J. & Hadinoto, Kunn & Kraft, Markus, 2018. "Incorporating seller/buyer reputation-based system in blockchain-enabled emission trading application," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 209(C), pages 8-19.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Xiwen Fu & Shuxin Wang, 2022. "How to Promote Low-Carbon Cities with Blockchain Technology? A Blockchain-Based Low-Carbon Development Model for Chinese Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-17, October.
    2. Tao Li & Jianqiang Luo & Kaitong Liang & Chaonan Yi & Lei Ma, 2023. "Synergy of Patent and Open-Source-Driven Sustainable Climate Governance under Green AI: A Case Study of TinyML," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-21, September.
    3. Arsenii Vilkov & Gang Tian, 2023. "Blockchain’s Scope and Purpose in Carbon Markets: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-27, May.
    4. Hongyi Liu & Tianyu He, 2023. "Sustainable Management of Land Resources: The Case of China’s Forestry Carbon Sink Mechanism," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, June.
    5. Yijing Zou & Dayi He & Rui Sun, 2023. "Evolutionary Game Analysis of Risk in Third-Party Environmental Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-20, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xiangyang Yu & Xiaojing Wang, 2023. "Research on Carbon-Trading Model of Urban Public Transport Based on Blockchain Technology," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-21, March.
    2. Rahel Mandaroux & Chuanwen Dong & Guodong Li, 2021. "A European Emissions Trading System Powered by Distributed Ledger Technology: An Evaluation Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-21, February.
    3. Hanghang Dong & Jun Yang & Xiaoming Li & Lan Xu, 2024. "Explore the Impact Mechanism of Block Chain Technology on China's Carbon Market," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 64(1), pages 105-135, July.
    4. Arsenii Vilkov & Gang Tian, 2023. "Blockchain’s Scope and Purpose in Carbon Markets: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-27, May.
    5. Wang, Juan & Zheng, Junjun & Yu, Liukai & Goh, Mark & Tang, Yunying & Huang, Yongchao, 2023. "Distributed Reputation-Distance iterative auction system for Peer-To-Peer power trading," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 345(C).
    6. Chunhua Ju & Zhonghua Shen & Fuguang Bao & Pengtong Weng & Yihang Xu & Chonghuan Xu, 2022. "A Novel Credible Carbon Footprint Traceability System for Low Carbon Economy Using Blockchain Technology," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-16, August.
    7. Qin, Meng & Zhang, Xiaojing & Li, Yameng & Badarcea, Roxana Maria, 2023. "Blockchain market and green finance: The enablers of carbon neutrality in China," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    8. Tao, Hu & Zhuang, Shan & Xue, Rui & Cao, Wei & Tian, Jinfang & Shan, Yuli, 2022. "Environmental Finance: An Interdisciplinary Review," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    9. Ahl, Amanda & Goto, Mika & Yarime, Masaru & Tanaka, Kenji & Sagawa, Daishi, 2022. "Challenges and opportunities of blockchain energy applications: Interrelatedness among technological, economic, social, environmental, and institutional dimensions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    10. Changping Zhao & Juanjuan Sun & Yu Gong & Zhi Li & Peter Zhou, 2022. "Research on the Blue Carbon Trading Market System under Blockchain Technology," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, April.
    11. Hua, Weiqi & Chen, Ying & Qadrdan, Meysam & Jiang, Jing & Sun, Hongjian & Wu, Jianzhong, 2022. "Applications of blockchain and artificial intelligence technologies for enabling prosumers in smart grids: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    12. Li, Qingqing & Shi, Jinbo & Ni, Kan & Wang, Ruohan & Zhang, Chongyi & Yang, Nan & Yang, Yifei & Shen, Yifan & Guo, Ru & Liao, Zhenliang, 2024. "A highly credible and efficient real-time carbon MRV + O system for delicacy management of distributed carbon abatement behaviors," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 355(C).
    13. Graves, Rose A. & Nielsen-Pincus, Max & Haugo, Ryan D. & Holz, Andrés, 2022. "Forest carbon incentive programs for non-industrial private forests in Oregon (USA): Impacts of program design on willingness to enroll and landscape-scale program outcomes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    14. Nishant Sapra & Imlak Shaikh & Ashutosh Dash, 2023. "Impact of Proof of Work (PoW)-Based Blockchain Applications on the Environment: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-29, March.
    15. Wei Peng & Baogui Xin & Yekyung Kwon, 2019. "Optimal Strategies of Product Price, Quality, and Corporate Environmental Responsibility," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-24, November.
    16. Chang, Hung-Hao & Lee, Brian & Hsieh, Yi-Ting, 2021. "Participation in afforestation programs and the distribution of forest farm income," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    17. Yin, Sihua & Yang, Haidong & Xu, Kangkang & Zhu, Chengjiu & Zhang, Shaqing & Liu, Guosheng, 2022. "Dynamic real–time abnormal energy consumption detection and energy efficiency optimization analysis considering uncertainty," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    18. Jieming Chou & Yidan Hao & Yuan Xu & Weixing Zhao & Yuanmeng Li & Haofeng Jin, 2023. "Forest Carbon Sequestration Potential in China under Different SSP-RCP Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-12, April.
    19. Su, Dan & Zhang, Lijun & Peng, Hua & Saeidi, Parvaneh & Tirkolaee, Erfan Babaee, 2023. "Technical challenges of blockchain technology for sustainable manufacturing paradigm in Industry 4.0 era using a fuzzy decision support system," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    20. Andrea Caravaggio & Luigi De Cesare & Andrea Di Liddo, 2023. "A Differential Game for Optimal Water Price Management," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-15, April.

    Corrections

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:21:p:11697-:d:662734. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.