IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-11-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ecosystem Good and Service Co-Effects of Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration: Implications for the U.S. Geological Survey’s LandCarbon Methodology

Author

Listed:
  • Boyd, James

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Brookshire, David S.

Abstract

This paper describes specific ways in which the analysis of ecosystem goods and services can be included in terrestrial carbon sequestration assessments and planning. It specifically reviews the U.S. Geological Survey’s LandCarbon assessment methodology for ecosystem services. The report assumes that the biophysical analysis of co-effects should be designed to facilitate social evaluation. Accordingly, emphasis is placed on natural science strategies and outputs that complement subsequent economic and distributional analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Boyd, James & Brookshire, David S., 2011. "Ecosystem Good and Service Co-Effects of Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration: Implications for the U.S. Geological Survey’s LandCarbon Methodology," RFF Working Paper Series dp-11-22, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-11-22
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-11-22.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    2. K. E. McConnell, 1992. "On-Site Time in the Demand for Recreation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 74(4), pages 918-925.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Boyd, James, 2010. "Lost Ecosystem Goods and Services as a Measure of Marine Oil Pollution Damages," RFF Working Paper Series dp-10-31, Resources for the Future.
    2. Boyd, James & Epanchin-Niell, Rebecca & Siikamaki, Juha, 2012. "Conservation Return on Investment Analysis: A Review of Results, Methods, and New Directions," RFF Working Paper Series dp-12-01, Resources for the Future.
    3. Wai Soe Zin & Aya Suzuki & Kelvin S.-H. Peh & Alexandros Gasparatos, 2019. "Economic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Recreation in Popa Mountain National Park, Myanmar: A Comparison of Two Rapid Valuation Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    4. Mikhail Miklyaev & Glenn P. Jenkins & Precious P. Adeshina, 2022. "Ex-Post Evaluation of The Algerian SWRO Desalination PPP Program," Development Discussion Papers 2022-14, JDI Executive Programs.
    5. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    6. Pamela Wicker & John C. Whitehead & Bruce K. Johnson & Daniel S. Mason, 2016. "Willingness-To-Pay For Sporting Success Of Football Bundesliga Teams," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 34(3), pages 446-462, July.
    7. Bowker, James Michael & Starbuck, C. Meghan & English, Donald B.K. & Bergstrom, John C. & Rosenberger, Randall S. & McCollum, Daniel W., 2009. "Estimating the Net Economic Value of National Forest Recreation: An Application of the National Visitor Use Monitoring Database," Faculty Series 59603, University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    8. Franz Hackl & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2005. "Warm glow, free‐riding and vehicle neutrality in a health‐related contingent valuation study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 293-306, March.
    9. Marieka M. Klawitter & C. Leigh Anderson & Mary Kay Gugerty, 2013. "Savings And Personal Discount Rates In A Matched Savings Program For Low-Income Families," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(3), pages 468-485, July.
    10. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    11. Larson, Douglas & Shaikh, Sabina, 1999. "Empirical Specification Requirements for Two-Constraint Models of Recreation Demand," Western Region Archives 321713, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    12. Beal, Diana J., 1995. "A Travel Cost Analysis of the Value of Carnarvon Gorge National Park for Recreational Use," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(02), pages 1-12, August.
    13. Van Houtven, George L. & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Usmani, Faraz & Yang, Jui-Chen, 2017. "What are Households Willing to Pay for Improved Water Access? Results from a Meta-Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 126-135.
    14. Jean-Daniel Rinaudo & Stéphanie Aulong, 2014. "Defining Groundwater Remediation Objectives with Cost-benefit Analysis: Does It Work?," Post-Print hal-00934930, HAL.
    15. Ali DOUAI, 2007. "Wealth, Well-being and Value(s): A Proposition of Structuring Concepts for a (real) Transdisciplinary Dialogue within Ecological Economics," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2007-18, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    16. Turpie, Jane K., 2003. "The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest, experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 199-216, September.
    17. Dienes, Christian, 2015. "Actions and intentions to pay for climate change mitigation: Environmental concern and the role of economic factors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 122-129.
    18. Lori D. Snyder & Robert N. Stavins & Alexander F. Wagner, 2003. "Private Options to Use Public Goods Exploiting Revealed Preferences to Estimate Environmental Benefits," Working Papers 2003.49, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    19. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    20. Stenger, Anne & Harou, Patrice & Navrud, Ståle, 2009. "Valuing environmental goods and services derived from the forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 1-14, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ecosystem services; carbon sequestration; land use planning;
    All these keywords.

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-11-22. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.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.