Forest Owner Willingness to Accept Payment for Forest Carbon in the United States: A Meta-Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Background
1.2. Goals and Objectives
- Curate a collection of stated preference studies conducted in the U.S. and focused on forest carbon incentives;
- Examine the statistical relationship between willingness to accept payment (WTA) for forest carbon and study program features, including contract design and respondent characteristics;
- Apply estimated values to contractual arrangements that may appeal to different categories of FFOs based on their values and management objectives.
2. Methods
2.1. Review of Stated Preference Studies
2.2. Data Sources
2.3. Description of Variables Tested in the Regression Analysis
2.4. Meta-Analysis and Benefit Transfer Methods
3. Results
3.1. Regression Analysis
3.2. Benefit Transfer
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
- Step 1:
- Developing the research question
- Step 2:
- Literature search for review
- Step 3:
- Coding the important information from studies
- Step 4:
- Systematic data analysis
- Step 5:
- Directing future research with clear conclusion
References
- Charnley, S.; Diaz, D.; Gosnell, H. Mitigating Climate Change Through Small-Scale Forestry in the USA: Opportunities and Challenges. Small-Scale For. 2010, 9, 445–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butler, B.J.; Leatherberry, E.C. America’s Family Forest Owners. J. For. 2004, 102, 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butler, B.J. Family Forest Owners of the United States, 2006; General Technical Report NRS-27; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: Newtown Square, PA, USA, 2008; Volume 27, p. 72. [CrossRef]
- Smith, J.E.; Domke, G.M.; Nichols, M.C.; Walters, B.F. Carbon Stocks and Stock Change on Federal Forest Lands of the United States. Ecosphere 2019, 10, e02637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oswalt, S.N.; Smith, W.B.; Miles, P.D.; Pugh, S.A. Forest Resources of the United States, 2017: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2020 RPA Assessment; General Technical Report WO-97; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; Volume 97. [CrossRef]
- Bulter, B.J.; Butler, S.M.; Caputo, J.; Dias, J.; Robillard, A.; Sass, E.M. Family Forest Ownerships of the United States, 2018: Results from the USDA Forest Service, National Woodland Owner Survey; NRS-GTR-199; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: Madison, WI, USA, 2021; p. NRS-GTR-199. [CrossRef]
- Lubowski, R.N.; Plantinga, A.J.; Stavins, R.N. Land-Use Change and Carbon Sinks: Econometric Estimation of the Carbon Sequestration Supply Function. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2006, 51, 135–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miltenberger, O.; Jospe, C.; Pittman, J. The Good Is Never Perfect: Why the Current Flaws of Voluntary Carbon Markets Are Services, Not Barriers to Successful Climate Change Action. Front. Clim. 2021, 3, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khanal, P.N.; Grebner, D.L.; Munn, I.A.; Grado, S.C.; Grala, R.K.; Henderson, J.E. Evaluating Non-Industrial Private Forest Landowner Willingness to Manage for Forest Carbon Sequestration in the Southern United States. For. Policy Econ. 2017, 75, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kerchner, C.D.; Keeton, W.S. California’s Regulatory Forest Carbon Market: Viability for Northeast Landowners. For. Policy Econ. 2015, 50, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sass, E.M.; Butler, B.J.; Markowski-Lindsay, M.A. Forest Ownership in the Conterminous United States circa 2017: Distribution of Eight Ownership Types—Geospatial Dataset. Res. Data Arch. 2020. Available online: https://www.fs.usda.gov/rds/archive/Catalog/RDS-2020-0044 (accessed on 30 June 2022). [CrossRef]
- Brockerhoff, E.G.; Barbaro, L.; Castagneyrol, B.; Forrester, D.I.; Gardiner, B.; González-Olabarria, J.R.; Lyver, P.O.; Meurisse, N.; Oxbrough, A.; Taki, H.; et al. Forest Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning and the Provision of Ecosystem Services. Biodivers. Conserv. 2017, 26, 3005–3035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graves, R.A.; Nielsen-Pincus, M.; Haugo, R.D.; Holz, A. Forest Carbon Incentive Programs for Non-Industrial Private Forests in Oregon (USA): Impacts of Program Design on Willingness to Enroll and Landscape-Scale Program Outcomes. For. Policy Econ. 2022, 141, 102778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soto, J.R.; Adams, D.C.; Escobedo, F.J. Landowner Attitudes and Willingness to Accept Compensation from Forest Carbon Offsets: Application of Best–Worst Choice Modeling in Florida USA. For. Policy Econ. 2016, 63, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wheeler, S.M. A Carbon-Neutral California: Social Ecology and Prospects for 2050 GHG Reduction. Urban Plan. 2017, 2, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitani, Y.; Lindhjem, H. Meta-Analysis of Landowner Participation in Voluntary Incentive Programs for Provision of Forest Ecosystem Services. Conserv. Biol. 2022, 36, e13729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, M.J.; Siry, J.P.; Colson, G.; Ferreira, S. Do Forest Property Characteristics Reveal Landowners’ Willingness to Accept Payments for Ecosystem Services Contracts in Southeast Georgia, U.S.? Ecol. Econ. 2019, 161, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mutandwa, E.; Grala, R.K.; Petrolia, D.R. Estimates of Willingness to Accept Compensation to Manage Pine Stands for Ecosystem Services. For. Policy Econ. 2019, 102, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chavas, J.-P.; Nauges, C. Uncertainty, Learning, and Technology Adoption in Agriculture. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2020, 42, 42–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, K.A.; Snyder, S.A.; Kilgore, M.A. State Forestry Agency Perspectives on Carbon Management and Carbon Market Assistance to Family Forest Owners. J. For. 2015, 113, 372–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations; Free Press of Glencoe: New York, NY, USA, 1962. [Google Scholar]
- How Forest Carbon Programs Work: Two Case Studies. Penn State Extension. Available online: https://extension.psu.edu/how-forest-carbon-programs-work-two-case-studies (accessed on 30 June 2022).
- Boyle, K.J.; Parmeter, C.F. Benefit Transfer for Ecosystem Services. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. Available online: https://oxfordre.com/environmentalscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389414-e-455 (accessed on 7 August 2022).
- Champ, P.A.; Boyle, K.J.; Brown, T.C. (Eds.) A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. In The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2017; Volume 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thapa, S.; Wang, L.; Koirala, A.; Shrestha, S.; Bhattarai, S.; Aye, W.N. Valuation of Ecosystem Services from an Important Wetland of Nepal: A Study from Begnas Watershed System. Wetlands 2020, 40, 1071–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenberger, R.S.; White, E.M.; Kline, J.D.; Cvitanovich, C. Recreation Economic Values for Estimating Outdoor Recreation Economic Benefits from the National Forest System; General Technical Report PNW-GTR-957; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: Portland, OR, USA, 2017; Volume 957, p. 33. [CrossRef]
- Meli, P.; Benayas, J.M.R.; Balvanera, P.; Ramos, M.M. Restoration Enhances Wetland Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Supply, but Results Are Context-Dependent: A Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e93507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stanley, T.D.; Jarrell, S.B. Meta-Regression Analysis: A Quantitative Method of Literature Surveys. J. Econ. Surv. 1989, 3, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, C.; Steinmetz, H.; Block, J. How to Conduct a Meta-Analysis in Eight Steps: A Practical Guide. Manag. Rev. Q. 2022, 72, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fletcher, L.S.; Kittredge, D., Jr.; Stevens, T. Forest Landowners’ Willingness to Sell Carbon Credits: A Pilot Study. North. J. Appl. For. 2009, 26, 35–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alhassan, M.; Motallebi, M.; Song, B. South Carolina Forestland Owners’ Willingness to Accept Compensations for Carbon Sequestration. For. Ecosyst. 2019, 6, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- White, A.E.; Lutz, D.A.; Howarth, R.B.; Soto, J.R. Small-Scale Forestry and Carbon Offset Markets: An Empirical Study of Vermont Current Use Forest Landowner Willingness to Accept Carbon Credit Programs. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0201967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stenclik, D. Understanding Private Forest Owner Participation in Future Carbon Offset Programs in The Catskills Region: A Contingent Valuation Approach. eCommoms. 2011. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/1813/29280 (accessed on 30 June 2022).
- Dickinson, B.J.; Stevens, T.H.; Lindsay, M.M.; Kittredge, D.B. Estimated Participation in U.S. Carbon Sequestration Programs: A Study of NIPF Landowners in Massachusetts. J. For. Econ. 2012, 18, 36–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, K.A.; Snyder, S.A.; Kilgore, M.A. An Assessment of Forest Landowner Interest in Selling Forest Carbon Credits in the Lake States, USA. For. Policy Econ. 2012, 25, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markowski-Lindsay, M.; Stevens, T.; Kittredge, D.B.; Butler, B.J.; Catanzaro, P.; Dickinson, B.J. Barriers to Massachusetts Forest Landowner Participation in Carbon Markets. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 71, 180–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKinley, D.C.; Ryan, M.G.; Birdsey, R.A.; Giardina, C.P.; Harmon, M.E.; Heath, L.S.; Houghton, R.A.; Jackson, R.B.; Morrison, J.F.; Murray, B.C.; et al. A Synthesis of Current Knowledge on Forests and Carbon Storage in the United States. Ecol. Appl. 2011, 21, 1902–1924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mutanda, E. Willingness of Mississippi’s Nonindustrial Private Forest Landowners to Manage Forests for Ecosystem Services. Ph.D. Thesis, Mississippii State University, Starkville, MI, USA, December 2015. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/openview/5eb2c8cfd865ffa56349bfaf35b7df3d/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750 (accessed on 30 June 2022).
- Kline, J.D.; Alig, R.J.; Johnson, R.L. Forest Owner Incentives to Protect Riparian Habitat. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 33, 29–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, D.; Cabral, R.; De la Torre, F. Robust Regression. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2016, 38, 363–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colin Cameron, A.; Windmeijer, F.A.G. An R-Squared Measure of Goodness of Fit for Some Common Nonlinear Regression Models. J. Econom. 1997, 77, 329–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelson, J.P.; Kennedy, P.E. The Use (and Abuse) of Meta-Analysis in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: An Assessment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 42, 345–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kreye, M.M.; Adams, D.C.; Escobedo, F.J. The Value of Forest Conservation for Water Quality Protection. Forests 2014, 5, 862–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kreye, M.M.; Adams, D.C.; Soto, J.R.; Tanner, S.; Rimsaite, R. Economic and Ethical Motivations for Forest Restoration and Incentive Payments. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2021, 34, 1093–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelly, M.C.; Germain, R.H.; Stehman, S.V. Family Forest Owner Preferences for Forest Conservation Programs: A New York Case Study. For. Sci. 2015, 61, 597–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Engel, J.B. The Development, Status, and Viability of the Conservation Easement as a Private Land Conservation Tool in the Western United States. Urban Lawyer 2007, 39, 19–74. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, T.M.; Alatorre, C.; Romo, Z.; Liu, F. Low-Carbon Development for Mexico; World Bank Publications: Washington DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Ristea, C.; Maness, T.C. Opportunities, Challenges and Markets for Forest Carbon Offset Projects. For. Chron. 2009, 85, 715–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program—National Woodland Owner Survey. Available online: https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/nwos/ (accessed on 30 June 2022).
- Chudy, R.P.; Cubbage, F.W. Research Trends: Forest Investments as a Financial Asset Class. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 119, 102273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruddell, S.; Sampson, R.; Smith, M.; Giffen, R.; Cathcart, J.; Hagan, J.; Sosland, D.; Godbee, J.; Heissenbuttel, J.; Lovett, S.; et al. The Role for Sustainably Managed Forests in Climate Change Mitigation. J. For. 2007, 105, 314–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, N. Nonindustrial Private Forest Landowners (NIPF) Willingness to Pay for Forest Certification in Arkansas. Small-Scale For. 2022, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malmsheimer, R.W.; Heffernan, P.; Brink, S.; Crandall, D.; Deneke, F.; Galik, C.; Gee, E.; Helms, J.A.; McClure, N.; Mortimer, M.; et al. Forest Management Solutions for Mitigating Climate Change in the United States. J. For. 2008, 106, 115–173. [Google Scholar]
- Bullard, S.; Straka, T. Basic Concepts in Forest Valuation and Investment Analysis; Clemson University: Clemson, SC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Brukas, V.; Sallnäs, O. Forest Management Plan as a Policy Instrument: Carrot, Stick or Sermon? Land Use Policy 2012, 29, 605–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewandowski, I.; Heinz, A. Delayed Harvest of Miscanthus—Influences on Biomass Quantity and Quality and Environmental Impacts of Energy Production. Eur. J. Agron. 2003, 19, 45–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kreye, M.M.; Rimsaite, R.; Adams, D.C. Public Attitudes about Private Forest Management and Government Involvement in the Southeastern United States. Forests 2019, 10, 776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, S.; Kreye, M.M. Public Attitudes towards Birds and Private Forest Land Conservation. Forests 2021, 12, 1525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Locatelli, B.; Evans, V.; Wardell, A.; Andrade, A.; Vignola, R. Forests and Climate Change in Latin America: Linking Adaptation and Mitigation. Forests 2011, 2, 431–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Börner, J.; Wunder, S.; Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S.; Tito, M.R.; Pereira, L.; Nascimento, N. Direct Conservation Payments in the Brazilian Amazon: Scope and Equity Implications. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1272–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okada, E.M. Uncertainty, Risk Aversion, and WTA vs. WTP. Mark. Sci. 2010, 29, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, S.; Kreye, M.M. Social Value of Bird Conservation on Private Forest Lands in Pennsylvania, USA. Ecol. Econ. 2022, 196, 107426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salmon, O.; Brunson, M.; Kuhns, M. Benefit-Based Audience Segmentation: A Tool for Identifying Nonindustrial Private Forest (NIPF) Owner Education Needs. J. For. 2006, 104, 419–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnston, C.M.T.; Radeloff, V.C. Global Mitigation Potential of Carbon Stored in Harvested Wood Products. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 14526–14531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
References | Obs. | Contract Design 1 | Services | Scale | Valuation | US State | WTA/Acre/Year (2020 USD) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[14] | 5 | YRS > 20–50+, PN | Carbon | Statewide | CE | Florida | USD 13.58–USD 88.14 |
[30] | 1 | - | Carbon | State region | CE | Massachusetts | USD 8.50 |
[31] | 1 | YRS50+, MR | Carbon | Statewide | CV | South Carolina | USD 67.83 |
[32] | 5 | YRS > 20–50+, PN | Carbon | Statewide | CE | Vermont | USD 11.68–USD 16.14 |
[9] | 1 | YRS <20, MR, MP | Carbon | Multistate | CV | Multiple states 2 | USD 178.00 |
[33] | 1 | - | Carbon | State region | CV | New York | USD 65.55 |
[34] | 2 | YRS > 50, PN | Carbon | Statewide | CE | Massachusetts | USD 5.40–USD 7.19 |
[35] | 3 | YRS20–50+ | Carbon | Multistate | CE | Multiple states 3 | USD 20.44–USD 23.75 |
[36] | 4 | YRS20–50+, MR, MP, PN | Carbon | Statewide | CE | Massachusetts | USD 280.77–USD 356.92 |
[37] | 3 | YRS > 20–50+, | Carbon | Statewide | CV | Texas | USD 10.86–USD 148.35 |
[18] | 3 | MR, MP | Multiple | Statewide | CV | Mississippi | USD 87.59–USD 194.90 |
[38] | 2 | MR, MP | Multiple | Statewide | CV | Mississippi | USD 87.48–USD 284.31 |
[39] | 2 | MR | Habitat | Northwest | CE | Oregon, Washington | USD 120.50–USD 151.93 |
Variable Category | Name | Description | Mean | SD | Min | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Willingness to accept (dependent) | WTA2020_Ln | Natural log of mean WTA acre/year for carbon sequestration services (2020 USD) | USD 3.87 | USD 1.25 | USD 1.69 | USD 5.88 |
Contract Attributes | ||||||
Other ecosystem services provided | MES | 1 = manage for multiple forest ecosystem services, 0 for carbon only | 0.36 | 0.48 | 0 | 1 |
Length of proposed contract | YRS | 1 = less than 20 years, 2 = length is 20–50 years, 3 = over 50 years | 0.23 | 0.42 | 1 | 50+ |
Penalty | PN | 1 = penalty for early withdrawal, 0 otherwise | 0.15 | 0.33 | 0 | 1 |
Management plan | MP | 1 = contract requires a management plan, 0 otherwise | 0.21 | 0.40 | 0 | 1 |
Management restriction | MR | 1 = contract requires owner to delay or reduce harvest, 0 otherwise | 0.42 | 0.50 | 0 | 1 |
Demographic Characteristics | ||||||
Gender of the respondent | Male | Percent male respondents reported in National Woodland Owners survey data | 81.00 | 0.4 | 71.00 | 89.00 |
Age of the respondent | Age | Respondent’s mean age category reported in National Woodland Owners survey data | 55–64 | 0.34 | >55 | >75 |
Income from timber | IT | Percent income from timber in study state(s) | 15.69 | 0.85 | 1.00 | 30.00 |
Number of acres owned | Acres_Ln | Natural log of mean number acres owned by respondents reported in study | 4.98 | 1.04 | 2.89 | 7.51 |
Length of the tenure | TL | Mean number of years forest land owned in study state(s) from National Woodland Owners survey data | 26.07 | 0.24 | 26.00 | 27.5 |
Respondent’s education 1 | Edu | Percent woodland owners with bachelor’s degree in study state(s) from National Woodland Owners survey data | 44.30 | 1.01 | 14.00 | 57.00 |
Race of the woodland owners | White | Percent of white woodland owners in study state(s) from National Woodland Owners survey data | 98.30 | 0.16 | 94.00 | 100.00 |
Study Characteristics | ||||||
Region of the study | Region | 1 = Southwest, 0 = All other regions | 2.08 | 1.22 | 0 | 1 |
Data collection method | Method | 1 = Mail survey, 2 = Phone survey, 3 = Web survey | 1.33 | 0.71 | 1 | 3 |
Type of question format | Questform | 1 = choice experiment was used, 0 otherwise | 0.94 | 0.23 | 0 | 1 |
Weighting variable | Weight | Ratio of natural log of sample bias and natural log of response bias | 2.16 | 0.41 | 1.30 | 2.83 |
Study year | Year | Years since 1994 (first study year) | 2010 is the most frequent study year |
Variable Name | Definition | Coef. | Std. Error | p > (t) |
---|---|---|---|---|
YRS | Number of contract years. 1 = less than 20 years, 2 = length is 20–50 years, 3 = over 50 years | 0.3561 | 0.1789 | 0.05 |
Acres_Ln | Natural log of mean number acres owned by respondents reported in study | −0.3482 | 0.1237 | 0 |
MP | 1 = contract requires a management plan, 0 otherwise | 0.9954 | 0.3701 | 0.01 |
MR | 1 = contract requires owner to delay or reduce harvest, 0 otherwise | 1.2406 | 0.3496 | 0 |
Region | 1 = Southwest, 0 = All other regions | 1.0637 | 0.5074 | 0.04 |
Constant | 4.1583 | 0.6484 | 0 | |
F (5,30) = 16.92, R-Squared = 0.6270 |
Passive Forest Owner a | Conservation-Oriented b | Timber Production-Oriented c | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ownership Size | Mean | 95% CI High | 5% CI Low | Mean | 95% CI High | 5% CI Low | Mean | 95% CI High | 5% CI Low |
Less than 20 acres (USD) | 21.73 | 28.70 | 16.45 | 11.47 | 15.14 | 8.68 | 111.06 | 146.70 | 84.09 |
20 to 250 acres (USD) | 13.08 | 17.28 | 14.64 | 6.90 | 9.12 | 5.23 | 66.88 | 88.34 | 50.63 |
More than 250 acres (USD) | 6.52 | 8.61 | 4.94 | 3.44 | 4.54 | 2.60 | 33.33 | 44.02 | 25.23 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sharma, S.; Kreye, M.M. Forest Owner Willingness to Accept Payment for Forest Carbon in the United States: A Meta-Analysis. Forests 2022, 13, 1346. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13091346
Sharma S, Kreye MM. Forest Owner Willingness to Accept Payment for Forest Carbon in the United States: A Meta-Analysis. Forests. 2022; 13(9):1346. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13091346
Chicago/Turabian StyleSharma, Sadikshya, and Melissa M. Kreye. 2022. "Forest Owner Willingness to Accept Payment for Forest Carbon in the United States: A Meta-Analysis" Forests 13, no. 9: 1346. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13091346
APA StyleSharma, S., & Kreye, M. M. (2022). Forest Owner Willingness to Accept Payment for Forest Carbon in the United States: A Meta-Analysis. Forests, 13(9), 1346. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13091346