Agricultural soils in climate change mitigation: comparing action-based and results-based programmes for carbon sequestration

IF 4.8 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Julia B. Block, Daniel Hermann, Oliver Mußhoff
{"title":"Agricultural soils in climate change mitigation: comparing action-based and results-based programmes for carbon sequestration","authors":"Julia B. Block, Daniel Hermann, Oliver Mußhoff","doi":"10.1007/s10584-024-03787-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere is a major challenge for today’s society. A great source of potential for greenhouse gas sequestration is beneath our feet: agricultural soil. By accumulating soil organic carbon in soil, farmers can sequester carbon dioxide and simultaneously reach soils more resilient to extreme weather events. To encourage farmers to build up humus and thus sequester carbon, some humus programmes have been developed by non-governmental organisations. In this regard, action-based reward systems are on their way to challenging the established results-based approaches. Against this background, we analyse how action-based and results-based approaches, as well as other crucial features of humus programmes, affect farmers’ willingness to participate in a humus programme. We conducted a Discrete-Choice-Experiment and analysed it using a mixed logit model. The results show that farmers have a statistically significant preference for action-based humus programmes, shorter programme durations, higher incentives, and an annual and government-funded payment. More specifically, farmer participation is twice as likely if humus formation is rewarded for action rather than results. The willingness-to-accept calculation indicates that a results-based humus programme would cost the funding agency about €20 more per ton of carbon dioxide sequestered in the soil. Above all, humus programmes with an action-based approach and annual payments would increase farmers’ willingness to participate. Our results contribute to the development of targeted humus programmes and policies to increase carbon sequestration in agricultural soils.</p>","PeriodicalId":10372,"journal":{"name":"Climatic Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Climatic Change","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-024-03787-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere is a major challenge for today’s society. A great source of potential for greenhouse gas sequestration is beneath our feet: agricultural soil. By accumulating soil organic carbon in soil, farmers can sequester carbon dioxide and simultaneously reach soils more resilient to extreme weather events. To encourage farmers to build up humus and thus sequester carbon, some humus programmes have been developed by non-governmental organisations. In this regard, action-based reward systems are on their way to challenging the established results-based approaches. Against this background, we analyse how action-based and results-based approaches, as well as other crucial features of humus programmes, affect farmers’ willingness to participate in a humus programme. We conducted a Discrete-Choice-Experiment and analysed it using a mixed logit model. The results show that farmers have a statistically significant preference for action-based humus programmes, shorter programme durations, higher incentives, and an annual and government-funded payment. More specifically, farmer participation is twice as likely if humus formation is rewarded for action rather than results. The willingness-to-accept calculation indicates that a results-based humus programme would cost the funding agency about €20 more per ton of carbon dioxide sequestered in the soil. Above all, humus programmes with an action-based approach and annual payments would increase farmers’ willingness to participate. Our results contribute to the development of targeted humus programmes and policies to increase carbon sequestration in agricultural soils.

减缓气候变化中的农业土壤:比较基于行动和基于成果的固碳计划
清除大气中的温室气体是当今社会面临的一项重大挑战。温室气体封存的一个巨大潜力来源就在我们的脚下:农业土壤。通过在土壤中积累土壤有机碳,农民可以固存二氧化碳,同时提高土壤抵御极端天气事件的能力。为了鼓励农民积累腐殖质,从而固碳,非政府组织制定了一些腐殖质计划。在这方面,基于行动的奖励制度正在向既定的基于结果的方法发起挑战。在此背景下,我们分析了基于行动和基于结果的方法以及腐殖质计划的其他重要特征如何影响农民参与腐殖质计划的意愿。我们进行了离散选择实验,并使用混合 logit 模型进行了分析。结果表明,从统计学角度看,农民更倾向于以行动为基础的腐殖质计划、更短的计划持续时间、更高的激励措施以及由政府出资的年度付款。更具体地说,如果腐殖质形成的奖励是行动而不是结果,农民参与的可能性就会增加一倍。接受意愿计算表明,基于结果的腐殖质计划每在土壤中螯合一吨二氧化碳,资助机构的成本将增加约 20 欧元。最重要的是,采用基于行动的方法和年度付款的腐殖质计划将提高农民的参与意愿。我们的研究结果有助于制定有针对性的腐殖质计划和政策,以增加农业土壤的碳固存。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Climatic Change
Climatic Change 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
10.20
自引率
4.20%
发文量
180
审稿时长
7.5 months
期刊介绍: Climatic Change is dedicated to the totality of the problem of climatic variability and change - its descriptions, causes, implications and interactions among these. The purpose of the journal is to provide a means of exchange among those working in different disciplines on problems related to climatic variations. This means that authors have an opportunity to communicate the essence of their studies to people in other climate-related disciplines and to interested non-disciplinarians, as well as to report on research in which the originality is in the combinations of (not necessarily original) work from several disciplines. The journal also includes vigorous editorial and book review sections.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信