What carbon farming activities are farmers likely to adopt? A best-worst scaling survey

Nikki Dumbrell, Marit Kragt, Fiona Gibson

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    15 Citations (Scopus)
    50 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. Transferring carbon from the atmosphere into terrestrial sinks through carbon sequestration practices (so-called 'carbon farming') has been proposed as an important component in Australia's efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. We use a Best-worst scaling survey to determine which carbon sequestration practices farmers would be most and least likely to adopt, and what factors were most important in any potential adoption decision. The survey was distributed to dryland cropping and mixed crop-livestock farmers in Western Australia. Farmers ranked improved soil quality and reduced soil erosion as the most important potential co-benefits of carbon farming. Factors discouraging farmers from participating in carbon farming contracts were policy and carbon price uncertainty and the uncertain impact of carbon farming practices on productivity and profitability. Farmers had strong preferences for stubble retention and no-till cropping practices as carbon farming strategies. The practices that farmers preferred least were applying biochar and planting trees. Farm and farmer characteristics, including (lack of) awareness of carbon farming policies and opinions about climate change, influence the potential willingness to adopt different carbon farming practices. Given recent policy uncertainty and farmer preferences revealed in this study, it is important to communicate potential co-benefits (rather than opportunities to earn compensation or carbon credits) to increase farmers' engagement in carbon sequestration activities.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)29-37
    JournalLand Use Policy
    Volume54
    Early online date12 Feb 2016
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Jul 2016

    Fingerprint

    scaling
    farmer
    farming systems
    farmers
    carbon
    carbon sequestration
    carbon markets
    uncertainty
    cropping practice
    contract farming
    biochar
    stubble
    tree planting
    greenhouse gas emissions
    profitability
    arid lands
    soil erosion
    Western Australia
    soil quality
    no-tillage

    Cite this

    @article{20ef53b1d61b414f9a6106807ec1a531,
    title = "What carbon farming activities are farmers likely to adopt? A best-worst scaling survey",
    abstract = "{\circledC} 2016 Elsevier Ltd. Transferring carbon from the atmosphere into terrestrial sinks through carbon sequestration practices (so-called 'carbon farming') has been proposed as an important component in Australia's efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. We use a Best-worst scaling survey to determine which carbon sequestration practices farmers would be most and least likely to adopt, and what factors were most important in any potential adoption decision. The survey was distributed to dryland cropping and mixed crop-livestock farmers in Western Australia. Farmers ranked improved soil quality and reduced soil erosion as the most important potential co-benefits of carbon farming. Factors discouraging farmers from participating in carbon farming contracts were policy and carbon price uncertainty and the uncertain impact of carbon farming practices on productivity and profitability. Farmers had strong preferences for stubble retention and no-till cropping practices as carbon farming strategies. The practices that farmers preferred least were applying biochar and planting trees. Farm and farmer characteristics, including (lack of) awareness of carbon farming policies and opinions about climate change, influence the potential willingness to adopt different carbon farming practices. Given recent policy uncertainty and farmer preferences revealed in this study, it is important to communicate potential co-benefits (rather than opportunities to earn compensation or carbon credits) to increase farmers' engagement in carbon sequestration activities.",
    author = "Nikki Dumbrell and Marit Kragt and Fiona Gibson",
    year = "2016",
    month = "7",
    doi = "10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.02.002",
    language = "English",
    volume = "54",
    pages = "29--37",
    journal = "Land Use Policy",
    issn = "0264-8377",
    publisher = "Elsevier",

    }

    What carbon farming activities are farmers likely to adopt? A best-worst scaling survey. / Dumbrell, Nikki; Kragt, Marit; Gibson, Fiona.

    In: Land Use Policy, Vol. 54, 07.2016, p. 29-37.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - What carbon farming activities are farmers likely to adopt? A best-worst scaling survey

    AU - Dumbrell, Nikki

    AU - Kragt, Marit

    AU - Gibson, Fiona

    PY - 2016/7

    Y1 - 2016/7

    N2 - © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. Transferring carbon from the atmosphere into terrestrial sinks through carbon sequestration practices (so-called 'carbon farming') has been proposed as an important component in Australia's efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. We use a Best-worst scaling survey to determine which carbon sequestration practices farmers would be most and least likely to adopt, and what factors were most important in any potential adoption decision. The survey was distributed to dryland cropping and mixed crop-livestock farmers in Western Australia. Farmers ranked improved soil quality and reduced soil erosion as the most important potential co-benefits of carbon farming. Factors discouraging farmers from participating in carbon farming contracts were policy and carbon price uncertainty and the uncertain impact of carbon farming practices on productivity and profitability. Farmers had strong preferences for stubble retention and no-till cropping practices as carbon farming strategies. The practices that farmers preferred least were applying biochar and planting trees. Farm and farmer characteristics, including (lack of) awareness of carbon farming policies and opinions about climate change, influence the potential willingness to adopt different carbon farming practices. Given recent policy uncertainty and farmer preferences revealed in this study, it is important to communicate potential co-benefits (rather than opportunities to earn compensation or carbon credits) to increase farmers' engagement in carbon sequestration activities.

    AB - © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. Transferring carbon from the atmosphere into terrestrial sinks through carbon sequestration practices (so-called 'carbon farming') has been proposed as an important component in Australia's efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. We use a Best-worst scaling survey to determine which carbon sequestration practices farmers would be most and least likely to adopt, and what factors were most important in any potential adoption decision. The survey was distributed to dryland cropping and mixed crop-livestock farmers in Western Australia. Farmers ranked improved soil quality and reduced soil erosion as the most important potential co-benefits of carbon farming. Factors discouraging farmers from participating in carbon farming contracts were policy and carbon price uncertainty and the uncertain impact of carbon farming practices on productivity and profitability. Farmers had strong preferences for stubble retention and no-till cropping practices as carbon farming strategies. The practices that farmers preferred least were applying biochar and planting trees. Farm and farmer characteristics, including (lack of) awareness of carbon farming policies and opinions about climate change, influence the potential willingness to adopt different carbon farming practices. Given recent policy uncertainty and farmer preferences revealed in this study, it is important to communicate potential co-benefits (rather than opportunities to earn compensation or carbon credits) to increase farmers' engagement in carbon sequestration activities.

    U2 - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.02.002

    DO - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.02.002

    M3 - Article

    VL - 54

    SP - 29

    EP - 37

    JO - Land Use Policy

    JF - Land Use Policy

    SN - 0264-8377

    ER -