Carbon offset market methodologies applicable for coastal wetland restoration and conservation in the United States: A review
Open accessAbstract
Coastal wetlands have been valued for a variety of ecosystem services including carbon sequestration and long term storage. The carbon sequestered and stored in coastal habitat including mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrass beds is termed as blue carbon. However, these systems are threatened mainly due to sea level rise, limited sediment supply, edge erosion, and anthropogenic influences. These habitats require restoration and conservation to continue providing ecosystem services. The incentive for emission reductions, referred to as carbon offsets, is well established for other ecosystems like forestry and agriculture. Some blue carbon offset methodologies or protocols have been certified by various voluntary carbon markets; however to date, a few wetland restoration carbon offset in the US has been transacted. Thus, the goal of this paper is to discuss the existing carbon market and carbon market methodologies applicable to coastal wetland restoration and conservation in the US. Currently, four wetland carbon offset methodologies have been approved in the carbon market. These methodologies are site and/or project-specific depending on the type of the wetlands, vulnerability to loss, and restoration need. The appropriate carbon stock and Green House Gas (GHG) emission assessment is the basis of determining carbon offsets. Simplification of the existing methodologies and development of new site and project-specific methodologies could potentially help to realize blue carbon offsets in practice. The slowly growing demand for carbon offsets in the carbon market could potentially be fulfilled from the blue carbon pool. While this carbon offset is in the early stages, this review may help the inclusion of carbon offset component in the coastal restoration and conservation projects in United States and potentially across the globe.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Despite efforts, few wetland restoration carbon offsets have been transacted so far.
“However, despite the efforts, a few wetland restoration carbon offsets have been transacted so far (Sapkota and White 2020).”
From Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review (2020) · cites this paper as Sapkota and White 2020
Estimated carbon sequestration rate is 6.3 ± 4.8 tCO2e ha-1 year-1 for mangroves, 8.0 ± 8.5 tCO2e ha-1 year-1 for salt marshes, and 4.4 ± 0.95 tCO2e ha-1 year-1 for seagrass meadows.
“Carbon sequestration and storage potential vary amongst different types of wetlands; for example, the estimated carbon sequestration rate is 6.3 ± 4.8 tCO 2 e ha -1 year -1 for mangroves, 8.0 ± 8.5 tCO2e ha -1 year -1 for salt marshes and 4.4 ± 0.95 tCO 2 e ha -1 year -1 for seagrass meadows.”
From Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review (2020) · cites this paper as Sapkota and White 2020
Several attempts have been made to include wetland-related offsets within existing voluntary and compliance carbon markets, including the development of protocols and methodologies.
“According to Sapkota et al., several attempts have been made to include wetland-related offsets within existing voluntary and compliance carbon markets, including the development of protocols and methodologies.”
From Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review (2020) · cites this paper as Sapkota and White 2020
A number of methodologies have already been certified in the USA by various voluntary markets.
“A number of methodologies have already been certified in the USA by various voluntary markets.”
From Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review (2020) · cites this paper as Sapkota and White 2020
Soil organic carbon accumulated in the top one metre amounted to 1060 tCO2e ha-1 for mangroves, 917 tCO2 ha-1 for salt marshes, and 500 tCO2 ha-1 for seagrasses.
“Within these habitats, the soil organic carbon accumulated in the top one metre amounted to 1060tCO 2 e ha -1 , 917 tCO 2 ha -1 and 500 tCO 2 ha -1 for mangroves, salt marshes and seagrasses, respectively (Sapkota and White 2020).”
From Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review (2020) · cites this paper as Sapkota and White 2020
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 37 · Cited by 149
- Authors
- Sapkota, Y., & White, J. R.
- Affiliations
- Louisiana State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- White, John R.
- Venue
- Science of The Total Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-01
- Volume
- 701
- Pages
- 134497
- ISSN
- 0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2982246824
- Cited by
- 149
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 0.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- The Science of The Total Environment (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel (GEOMAR) (acceptedVersion)
- Civil War Book Review (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Office of Research and Economic Development, Louisiana State University
- National Science Foundation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Coastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Conservation and Management
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
- Keywords
- coastal wetland restoration, coastal wetland conservation, blue carbon, carbon sequestration, carbon storage, mangroves, salt marshes, seagrass meadows, voluntary carbon markets, carbon stock estimation, sea level rise, United States
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review