A Review of Forest Carbon Sequestration Cost Studies: A Dozen Years of Research

By K. Richards, C. Stokes. 2004

491 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Agronomy and Crop Science, Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b79569d7d45da14ddb58d5336bd885fa8a5c1ebd

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Agronomy and Crop Science

In Economics and Econometrics

In Global and Planetary Change

Citations in the corpus

Woody biomass energy potential in 2050 (2014, result): “Moreover, there are large differences in production costs, which partly explains the different results (Richards and Stokes, 2004).”
The additionality problem with offsets: Optimal contracts for carbon sequestration in forests (2013, background): “Numerous studies have found that forest sequestration can be used to offset a substantial share of carbon emissions at costs that are similar to or lower than those associated with energy-based mitigation approaches (Richards and Stokes, 2004; van Kooten et al., 2004; Stavins and Richards, 2005; Lub”
The Opportunity Cost of Land Use and the Global Potential for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in Agriculture and Forestry (2006, background): “maximum value of 0.25, based on the econometric work of Choi (2004) for the United”
Issues related to mitigation in the long-term context (2007, background): “Sectoral studies suggest that some land-based mitigation could be cost-effective compared to some traditional energy related mitigation strategies and could provide a large proportion of total mitigation (Richards and Stokes, 2004; Sohngen and Mendelsohn, 2003; McCarl and Schneider, 2001).”
How costly are carbon offsets? A meta-analysis of carbon forest sinks (2004, methodology): “There are three approaches in the literature (IPCC, 1996; Richards and Stokes, 2004): 1.”
Appraising agricultural greenhouse gas mitigation potentials: effects of alternative assumptions (2006, background): “Numerous appraisals have estimated the GHG emission mitigation potential from agriculture and forestry in recent years (Richards and Stokes 2004, McCarl and Schneider 2000).”
Geographically explicit global modeling of land-use change, carbon sequestration, and biomass supply (2007, background): “Over most of the range of carbon prices considered in previous forest carbon sequestration studies, DIMA cost estimates are higher than those obtained using optimization models ([32,33]) and bottom-up engineering cost methods [34].”
Policy design for forest carbon sequestration: A review of the literature (2016, background): “…of carbon sequestration shows that the marginal costs of carbon sink enhancement can be considerably lower than those of carbon emissions reduction (see reviews by Sedjo et al., 1995; Stavins, 1999; Richards and Stokes, 2004; van Kooten et al., 2004, 2009; Manley et al., 2005; Phan et al., 2014).”
Can carbon sequestration markets benefit low-income producers in semi-arid Africa? Potentials and challenges (2007, methodology): “There is considerable variation in models and methods for analyzing C sequestration costs, which sometimes lead to discrepancies in findings (Richards and Stokes, 2004).”