Optimal spatial budget distribution of forest carbon payments that balances the returns and risks associated with conservation costs
- 29 Downloads
We determine the optimal spatial budget distribution of forest carbon payments that balances the returns and risks associated with conservation costs (opportunity cost of forestland) affected by future economic growth scenarios using a case study of the central and southern Appalachian region of the USA. A further focus is to evaluate the county-level tradeoffs between the returns and risks of future economic growth that affect the expected benefits and variance of forest carbon storage by constructing a mean–variance tradeoff frontier. Because of concavity of the mean–variance tradeoff frontier, mitigating risk by dispersing budget allocations among counties is advisable, particularly if conservation agencies focus on the returns with little or no regard for the risks associated with future growth at the initial policy-making stage. The different dispersions of the budget among counties for different weights placed on risk minimization provide clear evidence that spatial targeting for conservation and restoration investments such as forest carbon payments needs to consider the risk preferences of conservation agencies regarding conservation costs. Our findings suggest that failing to anticipate the potential risks will lead to suboptimal conservation targets and budget allocations, if conservation agencies are risk averse with little or no regard for the return-maximizing objective.
KeywordsEconomic growth Expected benefit Forest carbon payments Optimal spatial budget distributions Tradeoff frontier
We gratefully acknowledge Grant support from Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant/Award Numbers 111216290 and from a USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Multistate Project/Award Number W4133. We also gratefully acknowledge B. Wilson, J. Menard, L. Lambert, T. Kim, S. Kwon, U. Rahman, J. Mingie, M. Soh, and P.R. Armsworth for helpful discussion and data support and D. Hayes and G. Chen for generating carbon outputs. The usual disclaimer applies
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Alig, R. J., Latta, G., Adams, D. M., & McCarl, B. (2010). Mitigating greenhouse gases: The importance of land base interactions between forests, agriculture, and residential development in the face of changes in bioenergy and carbon prices. Forest Policy and Economics, 12, 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ando, A. W., Fraterrigo, J., Guntenspergen, G., Howlader, A., Mallory, M., Olker, J. H., et al. (2018). When portfolio theory can help environmental investment planning to reduce climate risk to future environmental outcomes—and when it cannot. Conservations Letters, 11(6), e12596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ando, A. W., & Mallory, M. L., (2012). Optimal portfolio design to reduce climate-related conservation uncertainty in the Prairie Pothole Region. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 201114653.Google Scholar
- Barbier, E. B., & Burgess, J. C. (1997). The economics of tropical forest land use options. Land Economics, 174–195.Google Scholar
- Carvalho, S. B., Brito, J. C., Crespo, E. G., Watts, M. E., & Possingham, H. P. (2011). Conservation planning under climate change: Toward accounting for uncertainty in predicted species distributions to increase confidence in conservation investments in space and time. Biological Conservation, 144, 2020–2030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- ESRI. (2012). ArcGIS Help 10.1: spatial analyst toolsets, arcgis resources. http://www.esri.com/.
- Fraser, R. (2009). Land heterogeneity, agricultural income forgone and environmental benefit: An assessment of incentive compatibility problems in environmental stewardship schemes. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 60, 190–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2008.00183.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. (2016). Technical support document: Technical update of the social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis under executive order 12866. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf.
- Kentucky Division of Forestry. (2015). Kentucky delivered log prices. Forest Resource Utilization Program.Google Scholar
- Kim, Y., & Cho, S. (2018). How spatial targeting of incentive payments for forest carbon can be adjusted for competing land uses. Regional Environmental Change. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10113-018-1411-x.
- Kripfganz, S., & Schneider, D. C. (2016). ardl: Stata module to estimate autoregressive distributed lag models. Presented at Stata Conference Chicago.Google Scholar
- Lewandrowski, J., Peters, M., Jones, C., House, R., Sperow, M., Eve, M., & Paustian, K. (2004). Economics of sequestering carbon in the US agricultural sector. Technical Bulletin Number 1909. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.Google Scholar
- Mason, C., & Plantinga, A. (2011). Contracting for impure public goods: Carbon offsets and additionality (No. w16963). National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
- Mason, C. F., & Plantinga, A. J. (2011). Contracting for impure public goods: Carbon offsets and additionality. NBER working papers 16963. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.Google Scholar
- National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). (2014). http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/.
- National Land Cover Database (NLCD). (2011). Product data downloads. http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd11_data.php.
- Nelson, E., Polasky, S., Lewis, D. J., Plantinga, A. J., Lonsdorf, E., White, D., Bael, D., & Lawler, J. J. (2008). Efficiency of incentives to jointly increase carbon sequestration and species conservation on a landscape. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(28), 9471–9476.Google Scholar
- Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). (2016). Daily surface weather and climatological summaries (daymet) weather dataset. http://daymet.ornl.gov/singlepixel.html.
- Smith, J. E., Heath, L. S., Skog, K. E., & Birdsey, R. A. (2006). Methods for calculating forest ecosystem and harvested carbon with standard estimates for forest types of the United States. General technical report 343. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. http://doi.org/10.2737/ne-gtr-343.
- Smith, W. B., Miles, P. D., Perry, C. H., & Pugh, S. A. (2009). Forest resources of the United States, 2007. General Technical Report WO-78. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office.Google Scholar
- Timber Mart-South (TMS). (2015). Product and services. http://www.timbermart-south.com/products.html.
- US Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018). Local area unemployment statistics. https://www.bls.gov/lau/.
- US Census Bureau. (2018). Housing vacancies and homeownership. https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/index.html.
- US Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture. (2012). Census. Google Scholar
- US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2012). Future of America’s forest and rangelands: Forest service 2010 resources planning act assessment. General technical report WO-87. Washington, DC. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/41976.
- US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2018). FIA data and tools. https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/index.php.
- US Geological Survey (USGS). (2013). Data and tools. https://www.usgs.gov/products/data-and-tools/gis-data.
- Verick, S., & Islam I. (2010). The great recession of 2008–2009: Causes, consequences and policy responses. IZA discussion paper series. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230295186_2.
- Wear D. N., & Greis, J. G. (2013). The southern forest futures project: Technical report. General technical report SRS-GTR-178. Asheville, NC: USDA-Forest Service, Southern Research Station.Google Scholar
- West Virginia Division of Forestry. (2015). West Virginia Timber Price Report.Google Scholar