Family Forest Landowners’ Interest in Forest Carbon Offset Programs: Focus Group Findings from the Lake States, USA

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.

Payments for Carbon Sequestration to Alleviate Development Pressure in a Rapidly Urbanizing Region

“…This result is consistent with 493 previous research (Fletcher, Kittredge, and Stevens 2009;Markowski-Lindsay et al 2011;494 Miller, Snyder, and Kilgore 2012;Miller et al 2014) and perhaps expected given most private 495 forest owners in the United States are passive managers. We had expected a higher level of 496 interest in payments for carbon sequestration programs given a recent region-wide study found 497 non-industrial private forest owners to be generally receptive to payments for carbon 498 sequestration programs (Khanal et al 2016).…”

“…Respondents had 521 strong preferences for programs yielding higher returns, which is logical and consistent with all 522 previous empirical research (Fletcher, Kittredge, and Stevens 2009;Dickinson et al 2012;523 Markowski-Lindsay et al 2011;Rabotyagov and Lin 2013;Knoot, Rickenbach, and Silbernagel 524 2015;Kelly, Germain, and Stehman 2015;Miller, Snyder, and Kilgore 2012;Miller et al 2014). 525…”

“…The majority of previous research has also found non-industrial private forest owners tend to be 526 hesitant to make long-term decisions committing them to managing their forestlands in any one 527 particular way (Dickinson et al 2012;Markowski-Lindsay et al 2011;Newell, Pizer, and Raimi 528 2013;Miller, Snyder, and Kilgore 2012;Miller et al 2014). This unfortunately does not bode 529 well for the prospect of establishing a regional payments for carbon sequestration market within 530 the study area.…”

Trading carbon, biodiversity, and livelihoods: a landscape scale analysis of ecosystems services and trade-offs in land-use policy

“…Solutions proposed on the basis of monetary or market mechanisms alone are likely to fail to take advantage of the range of incentives that people may prefer. For example, a recent survey of local forest owner perspectives on carbon-offset programs highlighted that financial gain was not a major source of motivation for participation (Miller et al, 2014). The carbon farmers cited recreational, educational, and bequest values as primary reasons for maintaining carbon rich forests, and one of the main incentives that could help improve this would be education, not finance (Miller et al, 2014).…”

“…For example, a recent survey of local forest owner perspectives on carbon-offset programs highlighted that financial gain was not a major source of motivation for participation (Miller et al, 2014). The carbon farmers cited recreational, educational, and bequest values as primary reasons for maintaining carbon rich forests, and one of the main incentives that could help improve this would be education, not finance (Miller et al, 2014). Similarly, in studies of participation in agrienvironmental schemes in USA and Europe suggest that bequest values, uptake hurdles, and social attitudes are equally if not more important than financial concerns (Defrancesco et al, 2008, Langpap, 2004, Lynch and Lovell, 2003.…”