IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea12/124830.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimating the Supply of Forest Carbon Offsets: A Comparison of Best- Worst and Discrete Choice Valuation Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Soto, Jose R.
  • Adams, Damian C.

Abstract

The use of carbon markets to regulate greenhouse gasses has been promoted as a cost-effective tool to deal with global warming. These markets often encourage forest landowners to capture carbon in exchange for compensation, by using different platforms that vary in terms of contract length, penalties for withdrawal, etc. These differences in available carbon programs send signals to both consumers, and potential producers of carbon credits, which often cause confusion, price variations, and potential barriers to participation. This study uses one of the most comprehensive lists of Florida non-industrial private forest landowners to implement two different conjoint choice tasks (best worst choice and discrete choice experimentation), which offer multiple options to estimate attitudes of landowners towards different carbon programs, as well as various avenues to estimate willingness to accept. Results indicate that landowners would need between $20 to $30 acre-per-year to be positively affected by revenue, while the inclusion of penalty for early withdrawal increases cost of participation by approximately $4.45 to $10.41 acre-per-year. In addition, this study compares the performance of best worst choice with the traditional discrete choice experimentation method, and finds similar estimates of willingness to accept from both models, but disagreement with overall attribute impact estimates.

Suggested Citation

  • Soto, Jose R. & Adams, Damian C., 2012. "Estimating the Supply of Forest Carbon Offsets: A Comparison of Best- Worst and Discrete Choice Valuation Methods," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124830, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea12:124830
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.124830
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/124830/files/Jose%20Soto%20AAEA%20paper.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.124830?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louviere, Jordan J. & Islam, Towhidul, 2008. "A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(9), pages 903-911, September.
    2. Sabina L. Shaikh & Lili Sun & G. Cornelis Van Kooten, 2007. "Are Agricultural Values a Reliable Guide in Determining Landowners' Decisions to Create Forest Carbon Sinks?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 55(1), pages 97-114, March.
    3. Pancholy, Nishita & Thomas, Michael H. & Solís, Daniel & Stratis, Nicholas, 2011. "The impact of biofuels on the propensity of land-use conversion among non-industrial private forest landowners in Florida," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(7), pages 570-574, September.
    4. Flynn, Terry N. & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2007. "Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 171-189, January.
    5. Lusk, Jayson L. & Parker, Natalie, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Amount and Type of Fat in Ground Beef," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(1), pages 1-16, April.
    6. Office of Health Economics, 2007. "The Economics of Health Care," For School 001490, Office of Health Economics.
    7. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    8. Foster, Vivien & Mourato, Susana, 2002. "Testing for Consistency in Contingent Ranking Experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 309-328, September.
    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. Zhou, Mo, 2015. "Adapting sustainable forest management to climate policy uncertainty: A conceptual framework," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 66-74.

    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. Simone Mueller & Larry Lockshin & Jordan Louviere, 2010. "What you see may not be what you get: Asking consumers what matters may not reflect what they choose," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 335-350, December.
    2. Soto, José R. & Adams, Damian C. & Escobedo, Francisco J., 2016. "Landowner attitudes and willingness to accept compensation from forest carbon offsets: Application of best–worst choice modeling in Florida USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 35-42.
    3. Hristov, Hristov & Kuhar, Ales, 2013. "Young Urban Adults' Preferences for Wine Attributes: An Exploratory Study of the Republic of Macedonia Wine Market Applying the Best-Worst Scaling," 2013 Conference: Tools for decision support in agriculture and rural development, April 18-19, 2013, Krško, Slovenia 183907, Slovenian Association of Agricultural Economists (DAES).
    4. Greiner, Romy, 2014. "Willingness of north Australian pastoralists and graziers to participate in contractual biodiversity conservation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165839, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    6. Farías, Pablo & Fistrovic, Bruno, 2016. "As preferências do consumidor aplicando o método de máximas diferenças," RAE - Revista de Administração de Empresas, FGV-EAESP Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo (Brazil), vol. 56(2), March.
    7. Terry N. Flynn & Elisabeth Huynh & Tim J. Peters & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Sam Clemens & Alison Moody & Joanna Coast, 2015. "Scoring the Icecap‐a Capability Instrument. Estimation of a UK General Population Tariff," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 258-269, March.
    8. Petrolia, Daniel R. & Walton, William C. & Sarah, Acquah, 2014. "A National Survey of Consumer Preferences for Branded Gulf Oysters and Risk Perceptions of Gulf Seafood," Research Reports 190586, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    9. Rubino, Elena C. & Pienaar, Elizabeth F. & Soto, José R., 2018. "Structuring Legal Trade in Rhino Horn to Incentivize the Participation of South African Private Landowners," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 306-316.
    10. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    11. Erdem, Seda & Rigby, Dan, 2011. "Using Best Worst Scaling To Investigate Perceptions Of Control & Concern Over Food And Non-Food Risks," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108790, Agricultural Economics Society.
    12. Cooper, Bethany & Crase, Lin & Rose, John M., 2018. "Cost-reflective pricing: empirical insights into irrigators’ preferences for water tariffs," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 62(2), April.
    13. Flynn, Terry Nicholas & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life. Variance-scale heterogeneity matters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1957-1965, June.
    14. Erik Brynjolfsson & Avinash Collis & Felix Eggers, 2019. "Using massive online choice experiments to measure changes in well-being," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(15), pages 7250-7255, April.
    15. Marti, Joachim, 2012. "A best–worst scaling survey of adolescents' level of concern for health and non-health consequences of smoking," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 87-97.
    16. T.N. Flynn & A.A.J. Marley, 2014. "Best-worst scaling: theory and methods," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 8, pages 178-201, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    18. Sackett, Hillary M. & Shupp, Robert & Tonsor, Glynn, 2013. "Consumer Perceptions of Sustainable Farming Practices: A Best-Worst Scenario," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(2), pages 275-290, August.
    19. Kruger, C. & Boxall, P.C. & Luckert, M.K., 2013. "Preferences of community public advisory group members for characteristics of Canadian forest tenures in pursuit of sustainable forest management objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 121-130.
    20. Scarpa, Riccardo & Notaro, Sandra & Raffaelli, Roberta & Louviere, Jordan, 2011. "Modelling attribute non-attendance in best-worst rank ordered choice data to estimate tourism benefits from Alpine pasture heritage," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 115990, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy; Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:aaea12:124830. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.