Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Evaluating a tax-based subsidy approach for forest carbon sequestration

  • SEONG-HOON CHO (a1), JUHEE LEE (a1), ROLAND K. ROBERTS (a1), BURTON C. ENGLISH (a1), EDWARD T. YU (a1), TAEYOUNG KIM (a2) and PAUL R. ARMSWORTH (a3)...

Summary

Forest carbon sequestration plays an important role in reducing the build-up of greenhouse gases that are known to contribute to global climate change. However, private landowners will supply less carbon sequestration than would be socially desirable if they are unable to capture the economic value of sequestration. We examine the viability of offering landowners property tax subsidies for forest carbon sequestration (referred to as a ‘tax-based subsidy approach’). Waiving property taxes on forestland provides incentives for landowners to afforest non-forested land and/or sustain forests that are at risk of deforestation. We focus on 17 Tennessee counties and one Kentucky county, constituting one of 179 Bureau of Economic Analysis areas in the United States, as a case study. Higher forestland net return from waiving property taxes increases the share of forestland in the 18 counties, which in turn increases the accumulation of carbon in the forest ecosystem, suggesting that this is a viable approach. The annualized county-level cost of supplying forest carbon sequestration using a tax-based subsidy ranges between US$15.56 and US$563.58 per carbon tonne across the 18 counties. Relevant government agencies can use these estimates to target selected counties for more cost-effective adoption of the county-level tax-based subsidy approach.

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Correspondence: Professor Seong-Hoon Cho e-mail: scho9@utk.edu

Footnotes

Hide All

Supplementary material can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892917000078

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Ahn, S. (2008) How feasible is carbon sequestration in Korea? A study on the costs of sequestering carbon in forest. Environmental and Resource Economics 41: 89109.
Alig, R., Stewart, S., Wear, D., Stein, S. & Nowak, D. (2010) Conversions of forest land: trends, determinants, projections, and policy considerations. In: Advances in Threat Assessment and their Application to Forest and Rangeland Management, eds. Pye, J.M., Rauscher, H.M., Sands, Y., Lee, D.C., Beatty, J.S., pp. 125. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-802. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest and Southern Research Stations.
Baldwin, L. & Richards, K.R. (2010) Institutional Support for an International Forest Carbon Sequestration Agreement. Discussion Paper 2010-41. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School.
CARB (2012) California's Cap and Trade Regulation [www document]. URL http://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/action/california/cap-trade-regulation
Dinan, T. (2012) Offsetting a Carbon Tax's Costs on Low-Income Households. Working Paper 2012-16. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office.
Eagle, J. (2011) Notional generosity: explaining charitable donors’ high willingness to part with Conservation Easements. Harvard Environmental Law Review 35: 47.
ESRI (2012) ArcGIS Help 10.1: Spatial Analyst Toolsets, ArcGIS Resources [www document]. URL http://resources.arcgis.com/en/communities/analysis/
EC (2016) International Forest Issues: Deforestation [www document]. URL http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/deforestation.htm
Fisher, G.W. (1997) The evolution of the American property tax. In: Public Budgeting and Finance, eds. Golembiewski, R.T. & Rabin, J., p. 100. York, UK: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Government of Brazil (2009) Law #12.187 of 29 December 2009. Diario Oficial da Uniao, #248-A, Secciao 1, 109–110. Brasilia, Brazil: Presidency of the Republic of Brazil Civic House (Executive Office) Legal Affairs Sub-Office.
Greene, W.H. (2012) Econometric Analysis (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Hellerstein, D., Higgins, N. & Roberts, M.J. (2015) Options for improving conservation 410 programs: insights from auction theory and economic experiments. USDA Economic Research Report Number 181 [www document]. URL https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/err181/50532_err181.pdf
Hyde, W., Belcher, B. & Xu, J. (2003) China's Forests: Global Lessons from Market Reforms. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future and CIFOR.
IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. Pachauri, R.K. & Meyer, L.A., pp. 1151. Geneva, Switzerland: International Panel on Climate Change.
Jin, G., Li, Z., Lin, Q., Shi, C., Liu, B. & Yao, L. (2015) Land use suitability assessment in low-slope hilly regions under the impact of urbanization in Yunnan, China. Advances in Meteorology 2015: 15.
Johnson, K.P. & Kort, J.R. (2004) Redefinition of the BEA economic areas. Survey of Current Business 84: 6875.
Loehr, D. (2010) External costs as driving forces of land use changes. Sustainability 2: 10351054.
Lubowski, R.N., Plantinga, A.J. & Stavins, R.N. (2006) Land-use change and carbon sinks: econometric estimation of the carbon sequestration supply function. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 51: 135152.
Markowski-Lindsay, M., Stevens, T., Kittredge, D.B., Butler, B.J., Catanzaro, P. & Dickinson, B.J. (2011). Barriers to Massachusetts forest landowner participation in carbon markets. Ecological Economics 71: 180190.
Mason, C.F. & Plantinga, A.J. (2011) Contracting for Impure Public Goods: Carbon Offsets and Additionality. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 16963 [www document]. URL http://www.nber.org/papers/w16963
NASS (2014) Pastureland Rent Data [www document]. URL http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/
NLCD (2011) U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey [www document]. URL http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd11_data.php
NREL (2016) DayCent: Daily Century Model [www document]. URL http://www.nrel.colostate.edu/projects/daycent/
Nelson, G.C. & Geoghegan, J. (2002) Deforestation and land use change: sparse data environments. Agricultural Economics 27: 201216.
Pagiola, S. (2005) Assessing the Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services Programs: A Framework for Analysis. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Parton, B., Ojima, D., Del Grosso, S. & Keough, C. (2001) CENTURY tutorial. CENTURY Users’ Manual [www document]. URL www.nrel.colostate.edu/projects/century/century_tutorial.doc
Peng, C., Apps, M.J., Price, D.T., Nalder, I.A. & Halliwell, D.H. (1998) Simulating carbon dynamics along the boreal forest transect case study (BFTCS) in central Canada: 1. Model testing. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 12: 381392.
Pidot, J. (2005) Reinventing Conservation Easements: A Critical Examination and Ideas for Reform. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Plantinga, A.J., Mauldin, T. & Miller, D.J. (1999) An econometric analysis of the costs of sequestering carbon in forests. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81: 812824.
Richardson, J.J. (2010) Conservation easements and adaptive management. Sea Grant Law and Policy Journal 3: 31.
Schoettle, F.P. (2003) What public finance do State Constitutions allow? In: Financing Economic Development in the 21st Century, eds. White, S.B., Bingham, R.D. & Hill, E.W., pp. 2749, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Schomers, S. & Matzdorf, B. (2013) Payments for ecosystem services: a review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosystem Services 6: 1630.
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: USDA Forest Service.
Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council (2013) Landscaping with Native Plants in Tennessee. Native tree recommendations for Tennessee [www document]. URL www.se-eppc.org/pubs/middle.pdf
Stavins, R.N. & Richards, K.R. (2005) The Cost of U.S. forest-based Carbon Sequestration. Prepared by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change [www document]. URL http://www.c2es.org/publications/cost-us-forest-based-carbon-sequestration
Thornton, P.E., Thornton, M.M., Mayer, B.W., Wilhelmi, N., Wei, Y., Devarakonda, R. & Cook, R.B. (2014) Daymet: Daily Surface Weather Data on a 1-km Grid for North America, Version 2. Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA [www document]. URL http://daac.ornl.gov
USDA (2014) Nez Perce–Clearwater National Forests Forest Plan Assessment. 4.0 Baseline Assessment of Carbon Stocks [www document]. URL http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3796950.pdf
USDA-NRCS (2012) SSURGO database [www document]. URL http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/site/soils/home/
USEPA (2012) Carbon Sequestration through Reforestation. A Local Solution with Global Implications [www document]. URL https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/176034.pdf
USEPA (2013) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2011. EPA 430-R-13-001. URL [www document]. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2013-Main-Text.pdf
USGS (2013) Gap analysis program: protected areas database of the United States (PADUS), version 1.3 Combined feature class [www document]. URL http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/data/
UTIA (2014) Field Crop Budgets [www document]. URL http://economics.ag.utk.edu/budgets/2014/2014RowCropBudgets.pdf
Yang, F., Zeng, G., Du, C., Tang, L., Zhou, J. & Li, Z. (2008). Spatial analyzing system for urban land-use management based on GIS and multi-criteria assessment modeling. Progress in Natural Science 18: 12791284.

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Cho supplementary material
Cho supplementary material 1

 Word (71 KB)
71 KB

Evaluating a tax-based subsidy approach for forest carbon sequestration

  • SEONG-HOON CHO (a1), JUHEE LEE (a1), ROLAND K. ROBERTS (a1), BURTON C. ENGLISH (a1), EDWARD T. YU (a1), TAEYOUNG KIM (a2) and PAUL R. ARMSWORTH (a3)...

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed