Resource information
Human land use contributes significantly to the growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Changes in land management practices have been proposed as a critical and cost-effective mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting the storage of additional carbon in vegetation and soils. However many discussions of the potential for land use to mitigate climate change only take into account biophysical factors such as vegetation and land cover and neglect how the agency of land owners themselves affects whether additional carbon storage can be achieved. Unlike many potential REDD opportunities in developing countries, land management in the U.S. to enhance carbon sequestration would occur against a backdrop of clearly defined, legally enforceable land ownership. In addition, more than a third of the land surface in the U.S. is managed by federal agencies who operate under legal guidelines for multiple use and is subject to demands from multiple constituencies. We set out to investigate how the goal of enhancing carbon sequestration through land use is perceived or implemented in one region of the U.S., and how this goal might intersect the existing drivers and incentives for public and private land use decision making. We conducted a case study through interviews of the major categories of landowners in the state of Colorado, which represents a mixture of public and privately held lands. By analyzing trends in interview responses across categories, we found that managing for carbon is currently a fairly low priority and we identify several barriers to more widespread consideration of carbon as a management priority including competing objectives, limited resources, lack of information, negative perceptions of offsetting and lack of a sufficient policy signal. We suggest four avenues for enhancing the potential for carbon to be managed through land use including clarifying mandates for public lands, providing compelling incentives for private landowners, improving understanding of the co-benefits and tradeoffs of managing for carbon, and creating more usable science to support decision making.
