Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 105, Issue 1–2, pp 43–66 | Cite as

Designing policies to mitigate the agricultural contribution to climate change: an assessment of soil based carbon sequestration and its ancillary effects

  • Klaus GlenkEmail author
  • Sergio Colombo
Article

Abstract

Soil carbon sequestration has been regarded as a cheap and cost-effective way to sequester carbon until other technologies to tackle climate change become available or more cost-effective. An assessment of the social desirability of a soil carbon sequestration policy requires the consideration of all associated social costs and benefits. Measures to re-accumulate carbon in soils have ancillary or co-effects on the environment that can be beneficial or detrimental to social welfare and few of which are traded in markets. This paper discusses issues related to the development of soil carbon sequestration policies into agri-environmental schemes and reports findings from an application of a choice experiment to elicit preferences and estimate benefits of a soil carbon programme in Scotland under consideration of co-effects on biodiversity and rural viability. Preferences for soil carbon based mitigation are found to be heterogeneous and related to beliefs about climate change and attitudes towards its mitigation. Benefit estimates suggest that including co-effects can significantly change the outcome of cost–benefit tests. Implications for the development of climate change policies are discussed.

Keywords

Carbon Sequestration Soil Carbon Climate Change Mitigation Climate Change Policy Mitigation Option 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allenby GM (1990) Hypothesis testing with scanner data: the advantage of Bayesian Methods. J Mark Res 27:379–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett J, Blamey R (2001) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  3. Birol E, Karousakis K, Koundouri P (2006) Using choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: the case of Cheimaditita wetland in Greece. Ecol Econ 60:145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL (2002) Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environ Resour Econ 23:421–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradley RI, Milne R, Bell J, Lilly A, Jordan C, Higgins A (2005) A soil carbon and land use database for the United Kingdom. Soil Use Manage 21:363–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burtraw D, Toman M (2000) Ancillary benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation policies. Climate change issues brief no. 7. Resources for the Future, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  7. Bush G, Colombo S, Hanley N (2009) Should all choices count? Using the cut-offs approach to edit responses in a choice experiment. Environ Resource Econ. doi: 10.1007/s10640-009-9292-6 Google Scholar
  8. Colombo S, Hanley N, Louviere J (2009) Modelling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture. Agr Econ 40:307–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davidson S, Martin C, Treanor S (2009) Scottish Environmental Attitudes and Behaviours survey 2008. Available via The Scottish Government. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/03/09083930/0. Accessed 15 May 2009
  10. Dawson JJC, Smith P (2007) Carbon losses from soil and its consequences for land-use management. Sci Total Environ 382:165–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dietz T, Dan A, Shwom R (2007) Support for climate change policy: social psychological and social structural influences. Rural Sociol 72(2):185–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Donald PF, Green RE, Heath MF (2001) Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 268(1462):25–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. EEA (2008) Greenhouse gas emission trends and projections in Europe 2008. EEA Report No 5/2008. EEA, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  14. Elbakidze L, McCarl B (2007) Sequestration offsets versus direct emission reductions: consideration of environmental co-effects. Ecol Econ 60:564–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feng H, Kling CL (2005) The consequences of cobenefits for the efficient design of carbon sequestration programs. Can J Agr Econ 53:461–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feng H, Kurkalova LA, Kling CL, Gassman PW (2007) Transfers and environmental co-benefits of carbon sequestration in agricultural soils: retiring agricultural land in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Clim Change 80:91–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freibauer A, Rounsevell MDA, Smith P, Verhagen A (2004) Carbon sequestration in European agricultural soils. Geoderma 122:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frelih-Larsen A, Leipprand A, Naumann S, Beucher O (2008) Climate change mitigation through agricultural techniques—policy recommendations. Contribution to EU-funded project “PICCMAT—Policy Incentives for Climate Change Mitigation Agricultural Techniques”. http://climatechangeintelligence.baastel.be/piccmat/files/PICCMAT_policy_recommendations_final_revised_181108.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2009
  19. Greene WH (2003) Econometric analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanley N, Hart S, Smith P (2007) The economics of climate change policy in Scotland. A paper for the David Hume Institute. www.davidhumeinstitute.com/DHI%20Website/publications/hop/Hanley%20final%20published%20version.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2009
  21. Heath Y, Gifford R (2006) Free-market ideology and environmental degradation: the case of belief in global climate change. Environ Behav 38:48–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. HM Treasury (2003) The Green Book: appraisal and evaluation in Central Government. Treasury Guidance. HM Treasury, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Ipsos MORI (2007) Tipping point or turning point? Social marketing & climate change. http://ipsosmori.co.uk/_assets/reports/turning-point-or-tipping-point.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2009
  24. Krinsky I, Robb AL (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68:715–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krosnick JA, Holbrook AL, Lowe L, Visser PS (2006) The origins and consequences of democratic citizens’ policy agendas: a study of popular concern about global warming. Clim Change 77:7–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krupnick A, Burtraw D, Markandya A (2000) The ancillary benefits and costs of climate change mitigation: a conceptual framework. In: OECD et al. (eds) Ancillary benefits and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation. Proceedings of an expert workshop. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  27. Lal R (2009) Carbon sequestration. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363(1429):815–830Google Scholar
  28. Lancaster K (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 74:132–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lokupitya A, Paustian K (2006) Agricultural soil greenhouse gas emission. J Environ Qual 35:1413–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lorenzoni IS, Nicholson-Cole S, Whitmarsh L (2007) Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Glob Environ Change 17:445–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Manski C (1977) The structure of random utility models. Theory Decis 8:229–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Markandya A, Rübbelke DT (2003) Ancillary Benefits of Climate Policy. FEEM working paper no. 105. www.feem.it/NR/rdonlyres/8BBE9EAF-9286-413F-9782-B13EC23873A9/967/10503.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2009
  33. Mathews S, O’Connor R, Platinga AJ (2002) Quantifying the impacts on biodiversity of policies for carbon sequestration in forests. Ecol Econ 40:71–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McCarl BA, Sands RD (2007) Competitiveness of terrestrial greenhouse gas offsets: are they a bridge to the future? Clim Change 80:109–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCarl B, Schneider U (2001) Greenhouse gas mitigation in US Agriculture and Forestry. Science 294:2481–2482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative variables in econometrics. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic, New York, pp 105–142Google Scholar
  37. McFadden D, Train K (2000) Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J Appl Eonometrics 15:447–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Milne R, Brown TA (1997) Carbon in the vegetation and soils of Great Britain. J Environ Manage 49:413–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moran D, McVittie A, Allcroft DJ, Elston DA (2007) Quantifying public preferences for agri-environmental policy in Scotland: a comparison of methods. Ecol Econ 63:42–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moran D, MacLeod M, Wall E, Eory V, Pajot G, Matthews R, McVittie A, Barnes A, Rees B, Moxey A, Williams A (2008) UK marginal abatement cost curves for the agriculture and land use, land use change and forestry sectors out to 2022, with qualitative analysis of options to 2050. Final report to the Committee on Climate Change. www.knowledgescotland.org/images_db/ukmarginalabatementcostcurves.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2009
  41. Moxey A (2008) Reviewing and developing agricultural responses to climate change. Report to the Scottish Executive. http://openscotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/915/0058344.doc. Accessed 15 May 2009
  42. Niemeyer S, Petts J, Hobson K (2005) Rapid climate change and society: assessing responses and thresholds. Risk Anal 25(6):1443–1456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. O’Connor RE, Bord RJ, Fisher A (1999) Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Anal 19(3):461–471Google Scholar
  44. Pattanayak SK, McCarl BA, Sommer AJ, Murray BC, Bondelid T, Gillig D, DeAngelo B (2005) Water quality co-effects of greenhouse gas mitigation in US agriculture. Clim Change 71:341–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pittel K, Rübbelke DTG (2008) Climate policy and ancillary benefits: a survey and integration into the modelling of international negotiations on climate change. Ecol Econ 68:210–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Plantinga AJ, Wu J (2003) Co-benefits from carbon sequestration in forests: evaluating reductions in agricultural externalities from an afforestation policy in Wisconsin. Land Econ 79(1):74–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Provencher B, Moore R (2006) A discussion of ‘Using angler characteristics and attitudinal data to identify environmental preference classes: a latent-class model’. Environ Resour Econ 34:117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rüffer C (2004) A results-orientated payment scheme for the conservation of agrobiodiversity, an interdisciplinary approach. In: 6th international BioEcon conference, Cambridge, 2–3 September 2004. Available via BioEcon. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/bioecon/10papers6.htm. Accesses 03 Jun 2009
  49. Scarpa R, Thiene M (2005) Destination choice models for rock-climbing in the North-East Alps: a latent-class approach investigating intensity of preferences. Land Econ 81:426–444Google Scholar
  50. Scottish Executive (2007) Third organic annual report. Available via The Scottish Government. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/02/20155217/0. Accessed 21 May 2009
  51. Scottish Government (2006) Changing our ways: Scotland’s climate change programme. Available via The Scottish Government. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/03/30091039/0. Accessed 03 Jun 2009
  52. Scottish Government (2008) Consultation on proposals for a Scottish Climate Change Bill. Available via The Scottish Government. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/01/28100005/0. Accessed 27 May 2009
  53. SGRERAD (Scottish Government Rural and Environment Research and Analysis Directorate) (2008) Economic report on Scottish agriculture 2008 edition. Available via The Scottish Government. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/05/22090130/0. Accessed 21 May 2009
  54. Singh BR, Lal R (2005) The potential of soil carbon sequestration through improved management practices in Norway. Environ Dev Sustain 7:161–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smith P, Andrén O, Karlsson T, Perälä P, Regina K, Rounsevell M, van Wesemael B (2005) Carbon sequestration potential in European croplands has been overestimated. Global Change Biol 11:2153–2163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z, Gwary D, Janzen H, Kumar P, McCarl B, Ogle S, O’Mara F, Rice C, Scholes B, Sirotenko O, Howden M, McAllister T, Pan G, Romanenkov V, Schneider U, Towprayoon S (2007a) Policy and technological constraints to implementation of greenhouse gas mitigation options in agriculture. Agric Ecosyst Environ 118:6–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smith P, Smith J, Flynn H, Killham K, Rangel-Castro I, Foereid B, Aitkenhead M, Chapman S, Towers W, Bell J, Lumsdon D, Milne R, Thomson A, Simmons I, Skiba U, Reynolds B, Evans C, Frogbrook Z, Bradley I, Whitmore A, Falloon P (2007b) ECOSSE: estimating carbon in organic soils—sequestration and emissions: final report. Available via The Scottish Government. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/03/16170508/0. Accessed 04 Jun 2009
  58. Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z, Gwary D, Janzen HH, Kumar P, McCarl B, Ogle S, O’Mara F, Rice C, Scholes RJ, Sirotenko O, Howden M, McAllister T, Pan G, Romanenkov V, Schneider U, Towprayoon S, Wattenbach M, Smith JU (2008) Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363:789–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Swait J (1994) A structural equation model of latent segmentation and product choice for cross-sectional revealed preference choice data. J Retail Consum Serv 1:77–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Towers W, Grieve IC, Hudson G, Campbell C, Lilly A, Davidson DA, Bacon JR, Langan SJ, Hopkins DW (2006) Scotland’s soil resource—current state and threats. The Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen and the University of Stirling, Stirling, UKGoogle Scholar
  61. Van Kooten C (2009) Biological carbon sequestration and carbon trading re-visited. Clim Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-009-9572-8 Google Scholar
  62. Vandenbygaart AJ, Gregorich EG, Angers DA, Stoklas UF (2004) Uncertainty analysis of soil organic carbon stock change in Canadian cropland from 1991 to 2001. Glob Change Biol 10:983–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vickery JA, Bradbury RB, Henderson IG, Eaton MA, Grice PV (2004) The role of agri-environment schemes and farm management practices in reversing the decline of farmland birds in England. Biol Conserv 119:19–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. West TO, Six J (2007) Considering the influence of sequestration duration and carbon saturation on estimates of soil carbon capacity. Clim change 80:25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. West TO, Marland G, King AW, Post WM, Jain AK, Andrasko K (2004) Carbon management response curves: estimates of temporal soil carbon dynamics. Environ Manag 33:507–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Macaulay Land Use Research InstituteAberdeenUK
  2. 2.Area de Economía y Sociología Agraria, IFAPACentro Camino de PurchilGranadaSpain
  3. 3.Land Economy and Environment Research GroupScottish Agricultural CollegeEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations