Abstract
In 2012, focus groups were organized with individuals owning 20+ acres in the Lake States region of the United States (Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin) to discuss various issues related to forest carbon offsetting. Focus group participants consisted of landowners who had responded to an earlier mail-back survey (2010) on forest carbon offsets. Two focus groups were held per state with an average of eight participants each (49 total). While landowner participant types varied, overall convergence was reached on several key issues. In general, discussion results found that the current payment amounts offered for carbon credits are not likely, on their own, to encourage participation in carbon markets. Landowners are most interested in other benefits they can attain through carbon management (e.g., improved stand species mix, wildlife, and trails). Interestingly, landowner perceptions about the condition of their own forest land were most indicative of prospective interest in carbon management. Landowners who felt that their forest was currently in poor condition, or did not meet their forest ownership objectives, were most interested in participating. While the initial survey sought landowner opinions about carbon markets, a majority of focus group participants expressed interest in general carbon management as a means to achieve reduced property taxes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) model estimates that improved forest management has the highest carbon sequestration potential (ranging from 24.8–384.8 Tg CO2 Eq. per year) at certain carbon price points (ranging from $1–$50/MT CO2 eq.) of all forestry/agricultural methods (US EPA 2005). (1Tg = 1 million metric tons). Improved forest management methods include: extending harvest/rotations, minimizing disturbances to forest floor, stocking of long-lived/climate-adaptive tree species, and natural disturbance risk management.
Family forest owners are defined by the USDA Forest Service as individuals, married couples, family estates/trusts, or other groups of unincorporated individuals (Butler and Leatherberry 2004).
Carbon market protocols with requirements consistent with those listed include: Climate Action Reserve (CAR); California Air Resources Board (CARB); Verified Carbon Standard (VCS); and the American Carbon Registry (ACR).
The most common forest certification programs include the following: Forest Stewardship Council International (FSC), Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and the American Tree Farm System (ATFS). Note: SFI only certifies land in the US and Canada, ATFS only certifies in the US.
Additionality: refers to the amount of additional carbon sequestration that occurs solely because a carbon offset project is initiated (i.e., the real, measureable carbon that is sequestered because an offset project is undertaken and that would not have been sequestered absent the project).
“Typical” carbon market scenarios presented were demonstrated using carbon credit prices recently seen in the voluntary market and sequestration rates typically seen using forest management techniques (1MT/year)(example given: for a 40 acre landowner, at $8/Ton, possible to generate a revenue of $8 × 40 Acres = $320/year).
A code is a descriptive word or phrase that describes a piece of data. “Coding” is a way of gathering all the references relating to a specific topic or theme within a dataset.
Traceable responses refer to the ability of the researcher to reliably link certain discussion responses to a specific individual—supported by transcript identifiers, note-taker identifiers, question/landowner response sequencing and/or moderator documentation.
References
Bazeley P (2009) Analysing qualitative data: more than ‘identifying themes’. Malaysian J Qualitative Res 2:6–22
Bliss J, Martin A (1988) Identity and private forest management. Soc Nat Resour 1:365–376
Bryman A, Burgess RG (1994) Analyzing qualitative data. Routledge, London and New York
Bull L, Thompson D (2011) Developing forest sinks in Australia and the United States—a forest owner’s prerogative. For Policy Econ 13:311–317
Busch J, Godoy F, Turner W, Harvey C (2011) Biodiversity co-benefits of reducing emissions from deforestation under alternative reference levels and levels of finance. Conserv Lett 4:101–115
Butler B (2008) Family forest owners of the United States, 2006. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-27. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square
Butler B, Leatherberry E (2004) America’s family forest owners. J For 102(7):4–9
Canadell J, Raupach M (2008) Managing forests for climate change. Mitig Sci 320:1456
Creswell J (1998) Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five designs. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
Diaz D, Hamilton K, Johnson E (2011) State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2011: From Canopy to Currency. Ecosystem Marketplace Report, Forest Trends, Washington, DC
Dickinson BJ, Stevens TJ, Lindsay MM, Kittredge DB (2012) Estimated participation in US carbon sequestration programs: a study of NIPF landowners in Massachusetts. J For Econ 18:36–46
Fischer AP, Charnley S (2010) Social and cultural influences on management for carbon sequestration on US family forestlands: a literature synthesis. Int J For Res 2010:1–14
Galik C, Mobley M, Richter D (2009) A virtual “field test” of forest management carbon offset protocols: the influence of accounting. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 14:677–690
Gorte R, Ramseur J (2010) Forest carbon markets: potential and drawbacks. CRS report for congress. Congressional Research Service. Report 7-5700: 1–17. www.crs.gov
Häyrinen L, Mattila O, Berghall S, Toppinen A (2014) Changing objectives of non-industrial private forest ownership: a confirmatory approach to measurement model testing. Can J For Res 44:290–300
Hogl K, Pregernig M, Weiss G (2005) What is new about new forest owners? A typology of private forest ownership in Austria. Small Scale For 4(3):325–342
IFFA (2012) The International Family Forestry Alliance. http://www.familyforestry.net/userfiles/file/PDF%20Organisation/IFFABrochure2012/IFFA_lowres.pdf
Ingemarson F, Lindhagen A, Eriksson L (2006) A typology of small-scale private forest owners in Sweden. Scandinavian J For Res 21(3):249–259
Kendra A, Hull RB (2005) Motivations and behaviors of new forest owners in Virginia. For Sci 51(2):142–154
Kilgore M, Greene J, Jacobson M, Straka T, Daniels S (2007) The influence of financial incentive programs in promoting sustainable forestry on the nation’s family forests. J For 105(4):184–191
Kingsley NP, Brock SM, Debald PS (1988) Focus group interviewing applied to retired West Virginia private forestland owners. North J Appl For 5:198–200
Krueger RA, Casey MA (2009) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied researchers, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
Leahy J, Kilgore M, Hibbard C, Donnay J (2008) Family forest land owners’ interest in and perceptions of forest certification: focus group findings from northern Minnesota. North J Appl For 25(2):73–81
Markowski-Lindsay M, Stevens T, Kittredge D, Butler B, Catanzaro P, Dickinson B (2011) Barriers to Massachusetts forest landowner participation in carbon markets. Ecol Econ 71:180–190
Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
Miller KA, Snyder SA, Kilgore MA (2012) An assessment of forest landowner interest in selling forest carbon credits in the Lake States. USA For Policy Econ 25:114–122
Morgan DL (1996) Focus groups as qualitative research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
Pacala S, Socolow R (2004) Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305(5686):968–972
Peters-Stanley M, Yin D (2013) Maneuvering the Mosaic State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2013. A Report by Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace & Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Washington, p 126
Richards L (2005) Handling qualitative data. Sage, London
Schirmer J, Bull L (2014) Assessing the likelihood of widespread landholder adoption of afforestation and reforestation projects. Glob Environ Change 24:306–320
Simpson H, Li Y (2010) Environmental credit marketing survey report. Texas Forest Service, Publication No. 169. Texas Forest Service Sustainable Forestry Department
Sohngen B (2009) An analysis of forestry carbon sequestration as a response to climate change. Copenhagen Consensus On Climate. http://aede.osu.edu/sites/drupal-aede.web/files/AP_Forestry_Sohngen_v_2_0.pdf
Thomas S, Dargusch P, Harrison S, Herbohn J (2010) Why are there so few afforestation and reforestation clean development mechanism projects? Land Use Policy 27(3):880–887
US EPA (2005) Greenhouse gas mitigation potential in US. Forestry and agriculture. http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/pdf/ghg_part3.pdf
Urquhart J, Courtney P (2011) Seeing the owner behind the trees: a typology of small-scale private woodland owners in England. For Policy Econ 13:535–544
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the USDA-Forest Service for providing financial support that assisted us in carrying out this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Miller, K.A., Snyder, S.A., Kilgore, M.A. et al. Family Forest Landowners’ Interest in Forest Carbon Offset Programs: Focus Group Findings from the Lake States, USA. Environmental Management 54, 1399–1411 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0352-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0352-5