ABSTRACT
A model of product and land markets in U.S. forest and agricultural sectors is used to examine the private forest management, land use, and market implications of carbon sequestration policies implemented in a “least social cost” fashion. Results suggest: policy-induced land use changes may generate compensating land use shifts through markets; land use shifts to meet policy targets need not be permanent; implementation of land use and management changes in a smooth or regular fashion over time may not be optimal; land use changes account for the largest part of adjustments to meet policy targets; and forest management changes involve higher intensity and less forest type conversion.
