Skip to main content
Log in

Influence of Project Scale and Carbon Variability on the Costs of Measuring Soil Carbon Credits

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A large body of research suggests that US cropland soils can also sequester significant amounts of C and are a promising source of C credits. This paper presents a framework for assessing the transactions costs associated with per-hectare and per-credit contract types and addresses the potential magnitude of transactions costs associated with measuring soil C credits under a per-credit contract within the dry-land crop region of Montana, USA. In the empirical analysis, we estimate the total measurement costs for soil C credits and investigate how changes in contract (and region) size as well as increases in C credit variability affect total measurement costs. The empirical analyses suggest that increasing the size of the contract and aggregating credits over a larger number of producers can lower measurement costs associated with the per-credit contract, even in the face of increasing C variability. Thus contracts for large quantities of soil credits increase the likelihood that the per-credit contract remains more efficient than the per-hectare contract. However, these empirical results reflect the specific data and conditions present within the case study region. The theoretical expectation is that sample size and measurement costs can either increase or decrease as the population to be sampled increases. Thus the measurement costs associated with a per-credit contract could respond differently from this analysis across the spatial extent of the US.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. J. M. Antle S. M. Capalbo (2001) ArticleTitleEconometric-process models for integrated assessment of agricultural production systems. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83 389–401 Occurrence Handle10.1111/0002-9092.00164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. J. M. Antle S. Mooney (2002) Designing efficient practices for agricultural soil carbon sequestration. J. M. Kimble R. Lal R. F. Follett (Eds) Agricultural practices and policies for carbon sequestration in soil. CRC Press Boca Raton, Florida 323–336

    Google Scholar 

  3. J. M. Antle S. M. Capalbo S. Mooney E. T. Elliott K. H. Paustian (2001) ArticleTitleEconomic analysis of agricultural soil carbon sequestration: an integrated assessment approach. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 26 344–367

    Google Scholar 

  4. J. M. Antle S. M. Capalbo S. Mooney E. T. Elliott K. H. Paustian (2002) ArticleTitleA comparative examination of the efficiency of sequestering carbon in US agricultural soils. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 17 109–115

    Google Scholar 

  5. Antle, J. M., S. M. Capalbo, S. Mooney, E. T. Elliott, and K. H. Paustian. 2003. Spatial heterogeneity, contract design, and the efficiency of carbon sequestration policies for agriculture. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management (in press)

  6. Brown, S. 1999. Guidelines for inventorying and monitoring carbon offsets in forest-based projects. Winrock International, Morrilton, Arkansas. http://www.winrock.org/reep/Guidelines.html

  7. R. Lal L. M. Kimble R. F. Follett C. V. Cole (1998) The potential of US cropland to sequester C and mitigate the greenhouse effect. Ann Arbor Press Chelsea, Michigan

    Google Scholar 

  8. MacDicken, K. G. 1997. A guide to monitoring carbon storage in forestry and agroforestry projects. Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development, http://www.winrock.org/REEP/PDF_Pubs/carbon.pdf

  9. C. H. McCall Jr. (1982) Sampling and statistics handbook for research. The Iowa State University Press Ames

    Google Scholar 

  10. McConkey, B., and W. Lindwall. 1999. Measuring soil carbon stocks: a system for quantifying and verifying change in soil carbon stocks due to changes in management practices on agricultural land. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, http://www.agr.gc.ca/policy/environment/eb/public_html/pdfs/climate_change/sinks.pdf

  11. Mooney, S., J. M. Antle, S. M. Capalbo, and K. H. Paustian. 2002. Contracting for soil carbon credits: design and costs of measurement and monitoring. Staff Paper 2002–01. Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Montana State University–Bozeman, May

  12. PacifiCorp. 1997. PacifiCorp’s commitment to the environment: CO2 initiatives. Portland Oregon, October

  13. W. J. Parton D. S. Schimel D. S. Ojima C. V. Cole (1994) A general model for soil organic matter dynamics: sensitivity to litter chemistry, texture and management. R. B. Bryant R. W. Arnold (Eds) Quantitative modeling of soil forming processes. SSSA Special Publication Number 39 Soil Science Society of America Madison, Wisconsin .

    Google Scholar 

  14. K. Paustian E. T. Elliott G. A. Peterson K. Killian (1996) ArticleTitleModelling climate, CO2 and management impacts on soil carbon in semi-arid agroecosystems. Plant Soil 187 351–365 Occurrence Handle1:CAS:528:DyaK2sXjtlSgs7w%3D

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. G. R. Pautsch L. A. Kurkalova B. A. Babcock C. L. Kling (2001) ArticleTitleThe efficiency of sequestering carbon in agricultural soils. Contemporary Economic Policy 19 23–134 Occurrence Handle10.1093/cep/19.2.123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rabe, B. G. 2002. Greenhouse and statehouse: the evolving state government role in climate change. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington Virginia. http://www.pewclimate.org/projects/states_greenhouse.pdf

  17. Rosenzweig, R., M. Varilek, B. Feldman, R. Kuppalli, and J. Janssen. 2002. The emerging international greenhouse gas market. Pew Center for Global Climate Change, Arlington Virginia. http://www.pewclimate.org/projects/trading.pdf, 2002

  18. G. R. Smith (2002) Case study of cost versus accuracy when measuring carbon stock in a terrestrial ecosystem. J. Kimble R. Lal R. F. Follett (Eds) Agricultural practices and policies for carbon sequestration in soil. CRC Press Boca Raton, Florida 183–192

    Google Scholar 

  19. Terry, D., C, Guinn, and M. Lee. 2002. State and local net greenhouse gas emission reductions programs. Case study database. Pew Center for Global Climate Change, Arlington Virginia. http://www.pewclimate.org/states/index1.cfm. Viewed 2 December 2002

  20. Vine, E., J. Sathaye, and W. Makundi. 1999. The monitoring, evaluation, reporting, verification and certification of climate change forest projects. LBNL-41877. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the helpful comments provided by Drs. John Kimble, Suzie Greenhalgh, and Gordon Smith. This material is based upon work supported by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, US Department of Agriculture, under Agreement Nos. 2003-35400-12907 and 2001-38700-11092 and the National Science Foundation Grant No. BCS-9980225. All remaining errors and omissions are the authors’.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mooney, S., Antle, J., Capalbo, S. et al. Influence of Project Scale and Carbon Variability on the Costs of Measuring Soil Carbon Credits . Environmental Management 33 (Suppl 1), S252–S263 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-9135-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-9135-0

Keywords

Navigation