The Demand for Voluntary Carbon Dioxide Removal

8. References

1. 1. Abildtrup J,
   2. Garcia S,
   3. Olsen SB,
   4. Stenger A

   (2013) Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation. Ecological Economics 92:67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.001

   OpenUrl
2. 1. Achtnicht M

   (2012) German car buyers’ willingness to pay to reduce CO2 emissions. Climatic Change 113:679–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0362-8

   OpenUrl
3. 1. Anderson B,
   2. Bernauer T

   (2016) How much carbon offsetting and where? Implications of efficiency, effectiveness, and ethicality considerations for public opinion formation. Energy Policy 94:387–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.04.016

   OpenUrl
4. 1. Austin KG,
   2. Baker JS,
   3. Sohngen BL,
   4. Wade CM,
   5. Daigneault A,
   6. Ohrel SB,
   7. Ragnauth S,
   8. Bean A

   (2020) The economic costs of planting, preserving, and managing the world’s forests to mitigate climate change. Nature Communication 11:5946. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19578-z

   OpenUrl
5. 1. Bain PG,
   2. Milfont TL,
   3. Kashima Y,
   4. Bilewicz M,
   5. Doron G,
   6. Garðarsdóttir RB,
   7. Gouveia VV,
   8. Guan Y,
   9. Johansson L-O,
   10. Pasquali C,
   11. Corral-Verdugo V,
   12. Aragones JI,
   13. Utsugi A,
   14. Demarque C,
   15. Otto S,
   16. Park J,
   17. Soland M,
   18. Steg L,
   19. González R,
   20. Lebedeva N,
   21. Madsen OJ,
   22. Wagner C,
   23. Akotia CS,
   24. Kurz T,
   25. Saiz JL,
   26. Schultz PW,
   27. Einarsdóttir G,
   28. Saviolidis NM

   (2016) Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. Nature Climate Change 6:154–157. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2814

   OpenUrl
6. 1. Bakhtiari F,
   2. Jacobsen JB,
   3. Thorsen BJ,
   4. Lundhede TH,
   5. Strange N,
   6. Boman M

   (2018) Disentangling Distance and Country Effects on the Value of Conservation across National Borders. Ecological Economics 147:11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.12.019

   OpenUrl
7. 1. Baranzini A,
   2. Borzykowski N,
   3. Carattini S

   (2018) Carbon offsets out of the woods? Acceptability of domestic vs. international reforestation programmes in the lab. Journal of Forest Economics 32:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2018.02.004

   OpenUrl
8. 1. Barrio M,
   2. Loureiro ML

   (2010) A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies. Ecological Economics 69:1023–1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.016

   OpenUrl
9. 1. Bateman I,
   2. Lovett A

   (2000) Estimating and valuing the carbon sequestered in softwood and hardwood trees, timber products and forest soils in Wales. Journal of Environmental Management 60:301–323. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2000.0388

   OpenUrlCrossRefGeoRefWeb of Science
10. 1. Bateman IJ,
    2. Day BH,
    3. Georgiou S,
    4. Lake I

    (2006) The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecological Economics 60:450–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.04.003

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
11. 1. Beißert H,
    2. Köhler M,
    3. Rempel M,
    4. Beierlein C

    (2014) Eine deutschsprachige Kurzskala zur Messung des Konstrukts Need for Cognition (NFC-K). GESIS-Working Papers
12. 1. Bellamy R

    (2022) Mapping public appraisals of carbon dioxide removal. Global Environmental Change 76:102593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102593

    OpenUrl
13. 1. Brey R,
    2. Riera P,
    3. Mogas J

    (2007) Estimation of forest values using choice modeling: An application to Spanish forests. Ecological Economics 64:305–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.006

    OpenUrl
14. 1. Brouwer R,
    2. Martin-Ortega J,
    3. Berbel J

    (2010) Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment. Land Economics 86:552–568. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.86.3.552

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
15. 1. Buntaine MT,
    2. Prather L

    (2018) Preferences for Domestic Action Over International Transfers in Global Climate Policy. Journal of Experimental Political Science 5:73–87. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2017.34

    OpenUrl
16. 1. Burton V,
    2. Moseley D,
    3. Brown C,
    4. Metzger MJ,
    5. Bellamy P

    (2018) Reviewing the evidence base for the effects of woodland expansion on biodiversity and ecosystem services in the United Kingdom. Forest Ecology and Management 430:366–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.08.003

    OpenUrl
17. 1. Canadell JG,
    2. Raupach MR

    (2008) Managing forests for climate change mitigation. Science 320:1456–1457. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1155458

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
18. 1. Carattini S,
    2. Baranzini A,
    3. Roca J

    (2015) Unconventional Determinants of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The role of trust. Environmental Research Letters 25:243–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1685

    OpenUrl
19. 1. Chaudhuri A

    (2011) Sustaining cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments: a selective survey of the literature. Experimental Economics 14:47–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-010-9257-1

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
20. 1. Cook-Patton SC,
    2. Leavitt SM,
    3. Gibbs D,
    4. Harris NL,
    5. Lister K,
    6. Anderson-Teixeira KJ,
    7. Briggs RD,
    8. Chazdon RL,
    9. Crowther TW,
    10. Ellis PW,
    11. Griscom HP,
    12. Herrmann V,
    13. Holl KD,
    14. Houghton RA,
    15. Larrosa C,
    16. Lomax G,
    17. Lucas R,
    18. Madsen P,
    19. Malhi Y,
    20. Paquette A,
    21. Parker JD,
    22. Paul K,
    23. Routh D,
    24. Roxburgh S,
    25. Saatchi S,
    26. van den Hoogen J,
    27. Walker WS,
    28. Wheeler CE,
    29. Wood SA,
    30. Xu L,
    31. Griscom BW

    (2020) Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth. Nature 585:545–550. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2686-x

    OpenUrl
21. 1. Cox E,
    2. Spence E,
    3. Pidgeon N

    (2020) Public perceptions of carbon dioxide removal in the United States and the United Kingdom. Nature Climate Change 10:744–749. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0823-z

    OpenUrl
22. 1. Czajkowski M,
    2. Budziński W,
    3. Campbell D,
    4. Giergiczny M,
    5. Hanley N

    (2017) Spatial Heterogeneity of Willingness to Pay for Forest Management. Environmental and Resource Economics 68:705–727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-016-0044-0

    OpenUrlCrossRef
23. 1. Dabla-Norris E,
    2. Helbling T,
    3. Khalid S,
    4. Khan H,
    5. Magistretti G,
    6. Sollaci A,
    7. Srinivasan K

    (2023) Public Perceptions of Climate Mitigation Policies: Evidence from Cross-Country Surveys. Staff Discussion Note SDN2023/002. International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
24. 1. Del Saz Salazar S,
    2. García Menéndez L

    (2007) Estimating the non-market benefits of an urban park: Does proximity matter? Land Use Policy 24:296–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.05.011

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
25. 1. Diederich J,
    2. Goeschl T

    (2014) Willingness to Pay for Voluntary Climate Action and Its Determinants: Field-Experimental Evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics 57:405–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9686-3

    OpenUrl
26. 1. Diederich J,
    2. Goeschl T

    (2018) Voluntary action for climate change mitigation does not exhibit locational preferences. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 90:175–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2018.03.006

    OpenUrl
27. 1. Falk A,
    2. Becker A,
    3. Dohmen T,
    4. Enke B,
    5. Huffman D,
    6. Sunde U

    (2018) Global Evidence on Economic Preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133:1645–1692. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjy013

    OpenUrlCrossRef
28. 1. Fawzy S,
    2. Osman AI,
    3. Doran J,
    4. Rooney DW

    (2020) Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review. Environmental Chemistry Letters 18:2069–2094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-01059-w

    OpenUrl
29. 1. Fekete H,
    2. Kuramochi T,
    3. Roelfsema M,
    4. Elzen M den,
    5. Forsell N,
    6. Höhne N,
    7. Luna L,
    8. Hans F,
    9. Sterl S,
    10. Olivier J,
    11. van Soest H,
    12. Frank S,
    13. Gusti M

    (2021) A review of successful climate change mitigation policies in major emitting economies and the potential of global replication. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137:110602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110602

    OpenUrl
30. 1. Feldhaus C,
    2. Gleue M,
    3. Löschel A,
    4. Werner P

    (2022) Co-benefits motivate individual donations to mitigate climate change: Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics. GSBE Research Memoranda No.004
31. Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace (2022) The Art of Integrity: State of Voluntary Carbon Markets, Q3 Insights Briefing. Washington DC: Forest Trends Association
32. 1. Forster EJ,
    2. Healey JR,
    3. Dymond C,
    4. Styles D

    (2021) Commercial afforestation can deliver effective climate change mitigation under multiple decarbonisation pathways. Nature Communication 12:3831. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24084-x

    OpenUrl
33. 1. Freeman AM

    (2003) The measurement of environmental and resource values: Theory and methods, 2nd edn. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC
34. 1. Fuss S,
    2. Lamb WF,
    3. Callaghan MW,
    4. Hilaire J,
    5. Creutzig F,
    6. Amann T,
    7. Beringer T,
    8. Oliveira Garcia Wd,
    9. Hartmann J,
    10. Khanna T,
    11. Luderer G,
    12. Nemet GF,
    13. Rogelj J,
    14. Smith. Pete,
    15. Vicente JLV,
    16. Wilcox J,
    17. Maria del Mar Zamora Dominguez,
    18. Jan C Minx

    (2018) Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environmental Research Letters 13:63002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f

    OpenUrl
35. 1. Fuss S,
    2. Canadell JG,
    3. Ciais P,
    4. Jackson RB,
    5. Jones CD,
    6. Lyngfelt A,
    7. Peters GP,
    8. van Vuuren DP

    (2020) Moving toward Net-Zero Emissions Requires New Alliances for Carbon Dioxide Removal. One Earth 3:145–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.08.002

    OpenUrl
36. 1. Gifford L

    (2020) “You can’t value what you can’t measure”: a critical look at forest carbon accounting. Climatic Change 161:291–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02653-1

    OpenUrl
37. 1. Gregory R,
    2. Satterfield T,
    3. Hasell A

    (2016) Using decision pathway surveys to inform climate engineering policy choices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113:560–565. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1508896113

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
38. 1. Gren I-M,
    2. Aklilu AZ

    (2016) Policy design for forest carbon sequestration: A review of the literature. Forest Policy and Economics 70:128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.008

    OpenUrl
39. 1. Herzog H,
    2. Golomb D

    (2004) Carbon Capture and Storage from Fossil Fuel Use. In: Encyclopedia of Energy. Elsevier, pp 277–287
40. 1. Holl KD,
    2. Brancalion PHS

    (2020) Tree planting is not a simple solution. Science 368:580–581. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba8232

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
41. 1. Honegger M,
    2. Poralla M,
    3. Michaelowa A,
    4. Ahonen H-M

    (2021) Who Is Paying for Carbon Dioxide Removal? Designing Policy Instruments for Mobilizing Negative Emissions Technologies. Frontiers in Climate 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.672996
42. 1. Jones B,
    2. Rachlin H

    (2006) Social discounting. Psychological Science 17:283–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01699.x

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
43. 1. Klein D

    (2009) Wie viele Bäume sind nötig, um eine Tonne CO2 zu binden? https://www.handelsblatt.com/technik/energie-umwelt/klima-orakel-wie-viele-baeume-sind-noetig-um-eine-tonne-co2-zu-binden/3201340.html?ticket=ST-3941575-ieluOdRwUQmnH3brmMH2-ap1. Accessed 14 January 2021
44. 1. Lautenbach S,
    2. Jungandreas A,
    3. Blanke J,
    4. Lehsten V,
    5. Mühlner S,
    6. Kühn I,
    7. Volk M

    (2017) Trade-offs between plant species richness and carbon storage in the context of afforestation – Examples from afforestation scenarios in the Mulde Basin, Germany. Ecological Indicators 73:139–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.09.035

    OpenUrl
45. 1. Lawrence MG,
    2. Schäfer S,
    3. Muri H,
    4. Scott V,
    5. Oschlies A,
    6. Vaughan NE,
    7. Boucher O,
    8. Schmidt H,
    9. Haywood J,
    10. Scheffran J

    (2018) Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals. Nature Communication 9:3734. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05938-3

    OpenUrl
46. 1. Ledyard J

    (1995) Public Goods: A survey of experimental research. In: The handbook of experimental economics. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ
47. 1. Lewis SL,
    2. Wheeler CE,
    3. Mitchard ETA,
    4. Koch A

    (2019) Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon. Nature 568:25–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01026-8

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
48. 1. Longo A,
    2. Hoyos D,
    3. Markandya A

    (2012) Willingness to Pay for Ancillary Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation. Environmental and Resource Economics 51:119–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-011-9491-9

    OpenUrl
49. 1. Löschel A,
    2. Sturm B,
    3. Vogt C

    (2013) The demand for climate protection—Empirical evidence from Germany. Economics Letters 118:415–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.12.007

    OpenUrl
50. 1. Löschel A,
    2. Sturm B,
    3. Uehleke R

    (2017) Revealed preferences for voluntary climate change mitigation when the purely individual perspective is relaxed – evidence from a framed field experiment. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 67:149–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2016.12.007

    OpenUrl
51. 1. Löschel A,
    2. Pei J,
    3. Wang R,
    4. Sturm B,
    5. Buchholz W,
    6. Zhao Z

    (2021) The Demand for Global and Local Environmental Protection: Experimental Evidence from Climate Change Mitigation in Beijing. Land Economics 97:137–154. https://doi.org/10.3368/wple.97.1.061219-0076R1

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
52. 1. MacKerron GJ,
    2. Egerton C,
    3. Gaskell C,
    4. Parpia A,
    5. Mourato S

    (2009) Willingness to pay for carbon offset certification and co-benefits among (high-)flying young adults in the UK. Energy Policy 37:1372–1381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.11.023

    OpenUrlCrossRef
53. 1. Maréchal K,
    2. Hecq W

    (2006) Temporary credits: A solution to the potential non-permanence of carbon sequestration in forests? Ecological Economics 58:699–716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.08.017

    OpenUrl
54. 1. Matthews HD,
    2. Zickfeld K,
    3. Dickau M,
    4. MacIsaac AJ,
    5. Mathesius S,
    6. Nzotungicimpaye C-M,
    7. Luers A

    (2022) Temporary nature-based carbon removal can lower peak warming in a well-below 2 °C scenario. Communications Earth & Environment 3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00391-z
55. 1. Mengist W,
    2. Soromessa T

    (2019) Assessment of forest ecosystem service research trends and methodological approaches at global level: a meta-analysis. Environmental Systems Research 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-019-0150-4
56. 1. Merk C,
    2. Liebe U,
    3. Meyerhoff J,
    4. Rehdanz K

    (2023) German citizens’ preference for domestic carbon dioxide removal by afforestation is incompatible with national removal potential. Commun Earth Environ 4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00713-9
57. 1. Mogas J,
    2. Riera P,
    3. Brey R

    (2009) Combining Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments. A Forestry Application in Spain. Environmental and Resource Economics 43:535–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-008-9248-2

    OpenUrl
58. 1. Nieto J,
    2. Carpintero Ó,
    3. Miguel LJ

    (2018) Less than 2 °C? An Economic-Environmental Evaluation of the Paris Agreement. Ecological Economics 146:69–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.10.007

    OpenUrl
59. 1. Ninan KN,
    2. Inoue M

    (2013) Valuing forest ecosystem services: What we know and what we don’t. Ecological Economics 93:137–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.05.005

    OpenUrl
60. 1. Núñez D,
    2. Nahuelhual L,
    3. Oyarzún C

    (2006) Forests and water: The value of native temperate forests in supplying water for human consumption. Ecological Economics 58:606–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.08.010

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
61. 1. Profft I,
    2. Mund M,
    3. Weber G-E,
    4. Weller E,
    5. Schulze E-D

    (2009) Forest management and carbon sequestration in wood products. European Journal of Forest Research 128:399–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-009-0283-5

    OpenUrlCrossRef
62. 1. Rhodes E,
    2. Axsen J,
    3. Jaccard M

    (2017) Exploring Citizen Support for Different Types of Climate Policy. Ecological Economics 137:56–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.02.027

    OpenUrl
63. 1. Richards KR,
    2. Stokes C

    (2004) A Review of Forest Carbon Sequestration Cost Studies: A Dozen Years of Research. Climatic Change 63:1–48. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000018503.10080.89

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
64. 1. Rodríguez-Entrena M,
    2. Barreiro-Hurlé J,
    3. Gómez-Limón JA,
    4. Espinosa-Goded M,
    5. Castro-Rodríguez J

    (2012) Evaluating the demand for carbon sequestration in olive grove soils as a strategy toward mitigating climate change. Journal of Environmental Management 112:368–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.004

    OpenUrlPubMed
65. 1. Rodríguez-Entrena M,
    2. Espinosa-Goded M,
    3. Barreiro-Hurlé J

    (2014) The role of ancillary benefits on the value of agricultural soils carbon sequestration programmes: Evidence from a latent class approach to Andalusian olive groves. Ecological Economics 99:63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.01.006

    OpenUrl
66. 1. Schaafsma M,
    2. Brouwer R,
    3. Gilbert A,
    4. van den Bergh J,
    5. Wagtendonk A

    (2013) Estimation of Distance-Decay Functions to Account for Substitution and Spatial Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Research. Land Economics 89:514–537. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.89.3.514

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
67. 1. Shrestha A,
    2. Eshpeter S,
    3. Li N,
    4. Li J,
    5. Nile JO,
    6. Wang G

    (2021) Inclusion of forestry offsets in emission trading schemes: insights from global experts. Journal of Forestry Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-021-01329-5
68. 1. Shrestha RK,
    2. Alavalapati JR

    (2004) Valuing environmental benefits of silvopasture practice: a case study of the Lake Okeechobee watershed in Florida. Ecological Economics 49:349–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.01.015

    OpenUrl
69. 1. Smith P,
    2. Adams J,
    3. Beerling DJ,
    4. Beringer T,
    5. Calvin KV,
    6. Fuss S,
    7. Griscom B,
    8. Hagemann N,
    9. Kammann C,
    10. Kraxner F,
    11. Minx JC,
    12. Popp A,
    13. Renforth P,
    14. Vicente Vicente JL,
    15. Keesstra S

    (2019) Land-Management Options for Greenhouse Gas Removal and Their Impacts on Ecosystem Services and the Sustainable Development Goals. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 44:255–286. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033129

    OpenUrl
70. 1. Smith SM,
    2. Geden O,
    3. Nemet G,
    4. Gidden M,
    5. Lamb WF,
    6. Powis C,
    7. Bellamy R,
    8. Callaghan M,
    9. Cox E,
    10. Fuss S,
    11. Gasser T,
    12. Grassi G,
    13. Greene J,
    14. Lück S,
    15. Mohan A,
    16. Müller-Hansen F,
    17. Peters G,
    18. Pratama Y,
    19. Repke T,
    20. Riahi K,
    21. Schenuit F,
    22. Steinhauser J,
    23. Strefler J,
    24. Valenzuela JM,
    25. Minx JC

    (2023) The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal – 1st Edition
71. 1. Strombach T,
    2. Jin J,
    3. Weber B,
    4. Kenning P,
    5. Shen Q,
    6. Ma Q,
    7. Kalenscher T

    (2014) Charity Begins at Home: Cultural Differences in Social Discounting and Generosity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 27:235–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1802

    OpenUrl
72. 1. Taye FA,
    2. Folkersen MV,
    3. Fleming CM,
    4. Buckwell A,
    5. Mackey B,
    6. Diwakar KC,
    7. Le D,
    8. Hasan S,
    9. Ange CS

    (2021) The economic values of global forest ecosystem services: A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 189:107145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107145

    OpenUrl
73. 1. Tolunay A,
    2. Başsüllü Ç

    (2015) Willingness to Pay for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forests in Turkey. Sustainability 7:1–27. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7033311

    OpenUrl
74. 1. Torres AB,
    2. MacMillan DC,
    3. Skutsch M,
    4. Lovett JC

    (2015) ‘Yes-in-my-backyard’: Spatial differences in the valuation of forest services and local co-benefits for carbon markets in México. Ecological Economics 109:130–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.11.008

    OpenUrl
75. 1. Uehleke R,
    2. Sturm B

    (2017) The Influence of Collective Action on the Demand for Voluntary Climate Change Mitigation in Hypothetical and Real Situations. Environmental and Resource Economics 67:429–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-016-0028-0

    OpenUrl
76. 1. van der Horst D

    (2006) Spatial cost-benefit thinking in multi-functional forestry; towards a framework for spatial targeting of policy interventions. Ecological Economics 59:171–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.10.005

    OpenUrl
77. 1. van Kooten G,
    2. Eagle AJ,
    3. Manley J,
    4. Smolak T

    (2004) How costly are carbon offsets? A meta-analysis of carbon forest sinks. Environmental Science & Policy 7:239–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2004.05.006

    OpenUrl
78. 1. van Kooten GC

    (2017) Forest carbon offsets and carbon emissions trading: Problems of contracting. Forest Policy and Economics 75:83–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.12.006

    OpenUrl
79. 1. van Kooten GC,
    2. Johnston CM

    (2016) The Economics of Forest Carbon Offsets. Annual Review of Resource Economics 8:227–246. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100815-095548

    OpenUrl
80. 1. Wenger A,
    2. Stauffacher M,
    3. Dallo I

    (2021) Public perception and acceptance of negative emission technologies – framing effects in Switzerland. Climatic Change 167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03150-9
81. 1. Wolske KS,
    2. Raimi KT,
    3. Campbell-Arvai V,
    4. Hart PS

    (2019) Public support for carbon dioxide removal strategies: the role of tampering with nature perceptions. Climatic Change 152:345–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02375-z

    OpenUrl
82. 1. Zickfeld K,
    2. Azevedo D,
    3. Mathesius S,
    4. Matthews HD

    (2021) Asymmetry in the climate–carbon cycle response to positive and negative CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change 11:613–617. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01061-2

    OpenUrl