Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Perceived climate change risks among other risks affecting private forest owners in a top-down decision-making process

Perceived climate change risks among other risks affecting private forest owners in a top-down... Forest management adaptation to climate change is a matter of forest type, disturbances regime, and forest owners’ behavior face the climate change issue. Knowing factors that determine people respond to climate change challenges is essential to explaining their perceptions of climate change adaptation. We have conducted a study in North-Eastern Romania applying the Model of Private Proactive Adaptation to Climate Change. The aim was to identify private forest owners’ perceptions about climate change and forest management threats and constraints and to analyse what variables differentiate private forest owners’ adaptation behavior. The PFOs with higher education were aware of the forest regime regarding private management. They knew how to assess climate change risk, while those with secondary education were the only interest was obtaining wood. The PFOs’ risk experience played an important role in adaptation. The perceptions and beliefs of PFOs were strongly influenced by socio-economic status, and they believe in climate change effects on forests but not on theirs. Adaption has become less urgent because forest management problems blur climate change beliefs. Assuming that the Romanian PFOs’ perceptions and beliefs about climate change will follow the European trend, they will want to improve their knowledge about climate change impacts and adaptive measures. Therefore, aggregating the interested PFOs, creating suitable communication channels, and organizing trainings on forest management adaptation to climate change will be needed to prevent this need. Key words: local climate change adaptation; private forest owner (PFO); perceptions; top-down decision Editor: Zuzana Sarvašová et al. 2016; Coşofreţ et al. 2022). Climate change projec- 1. Introduction tions on forests reveal a significant impact (Kirilenko & More than 50% of European forests are private (Hirsch Sedjo 2007): increased frequency and intensity of pest & Schmithüsen 2010), the percentage being similar for outbreaks, windstorms, or landslides (Seidl et al. 2009; Romanian forests. If in developed countries from the NW Vacek et al. 2019). In addition, the interaction of natural part of Europe, PFOs (private forest owners) can man- disturbances with anthropic disturbances has a different age their forests directly, in the former socialist countries impact on the environment (Dale et al. 2001). from the Central and SE part of Europe, and the State Individual perceptions of climate change and associ- requires that management implementation to be done ated risks differed from others (Blennow 2012), Semenza by forestry professionals (Nichiforel et al. 2018) et al. (2008) identified several categories of individuals’ Climate change proved to be a novel issue and a chal- perceptions. First, although most of the population is lenge for individuals, organizations, and governments aware of climate change at the global level, often was (Nelson et al. 2016; Sousa-Silva et al. 2016). The com- perceived as less urgent in everyday life due to the large bination of warming, alteration of precipitation regime, degree of uncertainty (Weber 2006; Costa-Font et al. unpredictable pattern of extreme events, and distur- 2009; Poortinga et al. 2011). bances regime fundamentally affects the forests (Jandl However, uncertainty regarding the degree of climate et al. 2019). change and its impact on forest resources has resulted Despite the uncertainties, the scientific community in controversial and contradictory perceptions about the has reached a consensus that human activity profoundly need and how to adapt to climate change (Yousefpour impacts the occurrence of climate change (Sousa-Silva et al. 2014). *Corresponding author. Cosmin Coşofreţ, e-mail: cosmin.cosofret@usm.ro © 2022 Authors. This is an open access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. C. Coşofreţ, L. Bouriaud / Cent. Eur. For. J. 68 (2022) 203–212 Climate change adaptation has become a significant beliefs can play an important role or can be a barrier in challenge because adaptation will reduce vulnerability the adaptation process due to knowledge gaps (O’Connor and increase climate resilience to changes (Fitzgerald & et al. 1999; Nelson et al. 2016). Finally, Vulturius et al. Lindner 2013; Sousa-Silva et al. 2018;Coşofreţ & Bouri- (2018) assessed and compared the subjective influence aud 2019). Climate change adaptation in forestry has to and structural factors on Swedish forest owners’ views be taken at every hierarchical level of decision-making, and intentions regarding climate change adaptation in the end, the key actors are forest owners and managers through MPPACC. (CPF 2008). The low implication of Romanian PFOs in Therefore, the study aims to apply MPPACC to iden- taking decisions (Nichiforel et al. 2018) led to a lack of tify PFOs’ perceptions about climate change and forest long-term adaptation strategies. In other European coun- management threats and constraints. We addressed two tries, PFOs’ views about adaptation to climate change research objectives: i) to analyze how PFOs perceive cli- represent an important input (Fazey et al. 2010; Blennow mate change and its influence on their forests, and ii) to 2012; van Gameren & Zaccai 2015). determine what variables differentiate PFO adaptation The identification of cognitive factors that influence behavior. adaptation was done through different behavioral theo- ries (Zobeidi et al. 2022) as the theory of planned behav- ior (Ajzen 1985), protection motivation theory (Rogers 2. Material and methods 1975) or theory of values-beliefs-norms (Stern et al. 2.1. Data collection 1999). The methodological approaches have evolved to have a practical approach for recognizing adaptive capac- The unfinished heritage restitution did not allow us ity (Zobeidi et al. 2022). The Model of Private Proactive to do a stratified sampling, then the PFOs’ identifica - Adaptation to Climate Change (MPPACC) represents tion was made through snowball sampling. The non- one of the approaches (Grothmann & Patt 2005) where probability technique does not determine the sampling perceived adaptive capacity was highlighted as the most error and is used when the sample is not easily available important bottleneck in adaptation. The perceived adap- (Biernacki & Waldorf 1981). tive capacity was inu fl enced by social identity (Frank et al. The unofficial estimates show 950 PFOs in the fol - 2011). These concepts were not always consistent, even lowing municipalities of Suceava county, Romania: if they correlated with objective adaptive capacity due to Moldoviţa, Vama, Frasin, Ostra and Stulpicani (Fig. 1) cognitive biases and heuristics (Miao et al. 2018). These and for assessing the perceptions and behavior about concepts showed that the perceived adaptive capacity climate change, we questioned 182 PFOs, in 2014. was considered more important in coping with future The share of private forests varies in analyzed munici- climatic changes (Tomlinson & Rhiney 2018). Psycho- palities, the highest percentage being in Vama in the logical factors like awareness, perception of risk and opposite being Stulpicani (Table 1). Fig. 1. Study location. 204 C. Coşofreţ, L. Bouriaud / Cent. Eur. For. J. 68 (2022) 203–212 Table 1. Forest ownership in the analyzed municipality. The second component of the model comprised cli- State Private mate change risk appraisal (perceived probability or Total forest area Questioned Municipality forest area forest area [ha] PFOs expectancy to be exposed to a threat and perceived sever- [%] ity or threat severity impacts on things valued by PFOs) Moldoviţa 17813 79 21 44 Vama 13479 44 56 49 (Table 5). Finally, other risks were den fi ed by knowledge Frasin 6659 75 25 15 about the forest regime and measures taken by State. Its Stulpicani 16506 78 12 46 Ostra 9379 55 45 28 implication in private forest management highlights the threats and struggles faced by PFOs in managing their forests (Table 6). 2.2. Theoretical framework and conceptual model For studying PFOs’ perception of climate change, we 2.3. Data analysis chose the socio-cognitive model of private proactive For identification PFOs’ perceptions about climate adaptation to climate change because the frame included change, the Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) the public policies, individual cognition and individual method was used, which is suitable for describing, ana- perception of adaptive capacity. The Grothmann & Patt lyzing, and visualizing qualitative information (Blasius model (Grothmann & Patt 2005) is based on Protection & Greenacre 2014). Motivation Theory (Rogers 1983) and broadly applies to Based on MCA were analyzed the relations among different fields of interest. respondents and variables. The individuals’ description The Grothmann and Patt model was adapted to depends on variables that best discriminate the respon- Romanian institutional and policy conditions being dents’ population (Blasius & Greenacre 2014). The added variable (Other Risks) unrelated to climate change variables and categories, most characteristic according (Fig. 2). to each dimension, were obtained with dimdesc function The questions fitted to the MPPACC model created (Husson et al. 2017). two important components (Table 1 in Appendix). The The top variables which determined the MCA dimen- first component included: reliance on public adaptation sions were analyzed through contingency tables and and public policy (status of the managed forest) (Table tested their significance with Pearson’s chi test. Data 2), risk experience appraisal (main threats for their for- analysis was performed with the library FactoMineR est) (Table 3), and cognitive biases and heuristics (factors (Husson et al. 2017) from R (R Core Team 2019). that can affect the adaptation capacity) (Table 4). Fig. 2. Model of Private Proactive Adaptation to Climate Change adapted to Romanian institutional and policy conditions. 205 C. Coşofreţ, L. Bouriaud / Cent. Eur. For. J. 68 (2022) 203–212 benefits of becoming forest owners made forest access 3. results to their property, not a problem (Table 3). 3.1. Private forest owners’ perception about climate change and management constrains Table 3. Forest management problems and threats for the pri- vate forest owner. The reliance on public adaptation and public forest policy Q7 – Threat. Which are the most important threats for your forest? Proportion was assessed through questions about management, har- N=173 [%] vesting, expectation and intentions. The possibility of Timber thieves 38 Insect outbreaks and pests 25 deciding on the future utilization of their forest led to 30% No threats, in fact 16 of PFOs who wanted to harvest their forests for different Forest administration and forest managers 9 Windthrows 9 needs but almost half complied with the forest manage- Landslides 4 ment plan. Half of the PFOs did not harvest last year, Q8 – Guarding. How did you ensure the guarding of the forest received back? and those did for firewood. After the restitution process, N=182 Spoken agreement with the forester 37 the PFOs’ expectations were related to their convenience With my family 24 (easy acquisition of firewood and wood for household Paid somebody 17 needs) for half of the PFOs, and the rest inherited their Was not necessary 17 Could not ensure the forest guarding 4 descendants. The future intention of PFOs was to keep Q9 – Wood.Theft. Has your forest been the subject of timber theft during the the forests and only less than 10% of PFOs wanted to latest two years? N=182 No 54 clear cut it (Table 2). Yes 32 I do not know 14 Q12 – Prbl.Bnft. For you, now, what does it mean to own a forest? N=182 Table 2. The private forest owners’ opinions about freedom of More benefits 68 decision about forest management, harvesting, expectations More problems 32 and future intentions with their forest property (N=182). Q15 – For.Access. Who has access to your forest? N=182 Q6 – Mngmt. If you had the freedom of decision in managing Everybody 51 Proportion The forester 19 your forest, what future forest utilization would you prefer? [%] My family 15 * Q6 – question number, Mngmt – abbreviation The owner 7 Firewood and construction wood 33 No one 7 Keep the forest as such 27 Comply with FMP provisions 19 Clear cut 10 The factors affecting adaptation capacity (cognitive Others 8 Protecting the forest 3 biases and heuristics) were assessed by describing the Q10 – Harvesting. Did you harvest wood from your private forest property in the restitution process and identifying the PFO profile. The last year? r fi st restitution law from 1991 dispossessed 47% of PFO, No 40 yes, firewood 40 34% by the second restitution law in 2000, and 19% by the yes, woodwork 15 third restitution law in 2005. At the restitution moment, I refuse to answer/ I do not know 6 Q11 – Expectation. When you get back your forest, what do you think or expect? more than 60% of forest stands were mature (suitable not obliged to buy firewood 25 for harvesting), and the forest composition was domi- wood for household needs 24 nated by coniferous (58%) and mixed stands (34%). Most inheritance 18 finally got back what was yours 14 PFOs were unassociated, did not have higher education earn money by selling wood 7 or forestry studies, and did not participate in nature additional places for grazing 7 can sell the land 2 protection and climate change training. The source of deforestation 1 information regarding climate change was news and TV I do not remember / I refuse to answer 1 shows about climate change, most of them watched TV other 1 Q13 – Intentions. What are your intentions for the future with your forest land? daily. The PFOs trusted the forester to share the informa- keep the same land use 59 tion about the forest, and forest professionals did forest no clear intentions 12 undertake afforestation 10 management (73%) (Table 4). clear cut 9 Climate change risks were appraised through ques- sell it 6 use as grasslands 3 tions about climate change’s causes and future effects. fence the forest 1 The PFOs believe in the existence of climate change (80%) and that the global warming from the last decade The risk experience was appraised through questions had anthropogenic (35%) and mixed causes (34%). In about the problems and benefits of forest management. the case of natural disturbances, the PFOs decided to In the PFOs‘ opinion, the main threats were represented cut the affected trees (60%), and 11% would use insec- by timber thieves, insect outbreaks or pests. The timber ticides. In the next 50 years, the PFOs thought that cli- thieves represented a significant threat because forest mate change effects would be diverse, from catastrophic guarding was not done properly due to the different events to temperature and rainfall regime changes. Even socio-economic conditions of PFOs. However, in the last if many respondents believed in climate change, they did two years, most PFOs were not stolen. In addition, the not consider it a threat to their forests (44%) (Table 5). 206 C. Coşofreţ, L. Bouriaud / Cent. Eur. For. J. 68 (2022) 203–212 Table 4. Forest characteristics (N=182). Table 5. Climate change opinions. Proportion Q17 – ClimateChange. Which of the following opinions about Proportion Q1 – RetrLaw. In which year did you receive back your forest? [%] climate change is closest to your opinion (tick one option ) [%] Law 18/1991 – first restitution law – (1 ha/PFO) 48 Climate change is quite obvious 57 Law 1/2000 – second restitution law – (10 ha/PFO) 33 Climate change is a fact undeniable 23 Law 247/2005 – third restitution law – (Restitutio in integrum) 19 Climate change cannot be proven at this time 10 Q2 – Area. Which is the area of your forest? I do not believe in climate change 10 <5 ha 83 I do not know 1 5–10 ha 12 Q19 – CausesCC. In your opinion, the global warming in the last decade is due to >10 ha 5 (check only one answer) Q3 – Age. How old is your forests? Only human activity (industrial development, pollution, population >100 40 growth, etc. ) 80–99 24 That both human activities and natural causes (natural and anthro- 60–79 20 pogenic) 40–59 9 I do not know 20 20–39 5 Purely natural causes (cannot be controlled) 12 <20 2 Q21 – InsectAttack. If your forest is at risk of dying due to of outbreaks or drought, Q4 – Composition. Tree species composition what measures do you think should be taken? Coniferous 57 Cutting the affected trees 60 Mixed forests 34 Silvicultural treatments 17 Broadleaves 8 Insecticides 11 Q5 – Dist. The distance from the owner’s house? I do not know 5 5–10 km 43 Talk with the experts 4 3–5 km 30 Other 3 >10 km 17 Q18 – EffectsCC. In your opinion, for the next 50 years, the effect of climate <1 km 10 change will be manifested by (tick the three options) Q22 – Qwnertype. In which owner category do you belong? Tendency to catastrophic climate events (floods, droughts, storms, Unassociated forest owner 81 etc.) Member of a rural community 9 Extreme temperature variations 17 Forest owner joined an association 6 Rising the temperature 15 Owner land 3 Essential changes in hydrology (flood, flow reduction, drying up Other 1 Q23 – Studies. Levels of studies? springs, etc.) Secondary education 87 I do not know 10 Essential changes to the local climate (desertification, aridity, etc.) 7 Higher education 13 Q24 – ForestryStud. Forestry studies? Decrease the rainfall 5 Increase the rainfall 3 No 91 Yes 9 Will be no changes to the present / same climate as that now 3 Q25 – TrainingCC. Have you taken part at courses/training in the field of climate It cannot be said 3 Lowering the temperature 2 change and protection of nature Another opinion : 2 No 93 Q20 – RealthreatCC. For your forest, the climate change is a real threat? Yes 7 No 44 Q26 – InformationCC. Regarding climate change, which is the primary source of Yes 31 information? I do not know 25 Journal news 53 TV shows on the subject 33 Internet 10 PFOs can face other risks related to their knowledge Discussions with the colleagues 3 about the forest regime, and almost 70% of respondents Other 1 Q27 – WatchTV. How often do You watch TV news? knew too little about it. Also, the State should help them Every day 71 have a better guard and subsidize the professional forest 2–3 times a week 24 Hardly ever 3 services for small PFOs (Table 6). Several times a month 2 Q28 – InfAbFor. Who do you trust for the transmission of knowledge about the forest? Table 6. The opinions about the measures that the State The forester 54 should take to help the private forest owners N=182. No one 24 Q14 – Measures. Which is your opinion about the State’s measures Proportion The family 12 to help the private forest owners? [%] Everyone 10 To oblige the forest districts to guard the private forests against Q29 – WhoMng. Who administers your forest? Do you have contract for services timber theft (guard) with the forest district? To subsidize professional forest services 18 Forest district 73 To inform and teach us about how to manage the forest 16 I do not have 15 Something else 10 Family 12 To change for non–compulsory the current obligation of wood mark- ing previous to harvesting To help us to create associations with other owners for managing forests together I do not know 8 To buy our forests at market prices 4 Q16 – For.regime. What do you know about forest regime? I know too little 39 I have not heard. I do not know 31 I know rather well what does it means 18 I know very well what does it means 12 207 C. Coşofreţ, L. Bouriaud / Cent. Eur. For. J. 68 (2022) 203–212 The PFOs with medium education did not acknowl- 3.2. Private forest owners‘ adaptation edge climate change as a threat and had little knowledge behavior about the forest regime, while those with higher educa- The projected variables (questions) had low variance tion showed the opposite. If they do not admit climate (19.2%-considered standard in MCA), and we resumed change as a threat, the knowledge about climate change our analysis of PFOs’ distribution only on two dimen- effects is expected to be limited (Table 7). sions (Fig. 3). The first dimension variables were Q16 – For.regime Table 7. Significant contingency table of top variables deter - and Q6 – Mngmnt, which den fi e PFO’s perception of the mining the first dimension. forest, Q23 – Studies that showed their educational back- Variables χ d.f* p.value Q20–RealThreatCC ~ Q16–For.regime 14.74627 6 0.0223 ground and Q17 – Climate change, Q20 – RealThreatCC, Q20–RealThreatCC ~ Q6–Mngmnt 17.71938 8 0.0234 Q18 – EffectsCC, which describe climate change threats. Q20–RealThreatCC ~ Q23–Studies 12.1707 2 0.0022 Q18–EffectsCC ~ Q6–Mngmnt 32.72876 16 0.0081 The first dimension explained the expectancy of being Q23–Studies ~ Q16–For.regime 15.16537 3 0.0016 exposed to a threat. *d.f. – degree of freedom. The most characteristic variables for the second dimension were Q9 – Wood theft, Q7 – Threat, Q8 – The comparative analysis between variables that Guarding, which highlighted the PFOs’ perceptions of determined the second MCA dimension resulted in six threats more imminent than climate change even if they significant contingency tables. In this respect, the PFOs believe in it (Q17 – Climate Change). The fact that vari- that believed in climate change were more affected by ables Q14 – Measures and Q5 – Dist also determined the natural or anthropic disturbances than nonbelievers who second dimension showed that the risk experience has an did not experience any threats. On the other hand, there essential role in adaptation (Table 2 in Appendix). was no difference between PFOs (stolen or not) regard- From the comprehensive comparative analysis of top ing forest services (marking and guarding), both wishing variables which created the r fi st dimension, only v fi e were them free. found significant ( p.value <0.05) and further analyzed. In the case of natural (insect outbreaks and pests) The PFOs who said that climate change is not a real threat and anthropic disturbances, the PFO wanted a better had a greater incidence of not knowing what is forest and free guard from forest districts. The need for pro- regime, while those who said that climate change is real fessional services was found at PFOs, which were stolen. also had some knowledge about forest regime. Analyz- In contrast, those who considered guard unnecessary did ing management and climate change threats resulted in not observe wood thefts due to low implications or young the PFOs that did not believe in climate change threats forest stands, which are less attractive for wood thieves. would manage their forest for wood production, while those who admitted it had a more protective approach. Fig. 3. Most characteristic variables for Multiple Correspondence Analysis first and the second dimension. 208 C. Coşofreţ, L. Bouriaud / Cent. Eur. For. J. 68 (2022) 203–212 The PFOs who had not been stolen and did not con- ment is problematic in the perception of the forest owners, sider guarding necessary were affected by natural distur- with many unsolved issues (Blennow 2012). The strong bances or did not face any threats. Instead, timber thieves desire of Romanian PFOs to have enough firewood and stole the PFOs affected by anthropic disturbances, and construction wood covered forest ownership problems such as guarding forests, obtaining harvesting permits, the guard of private forests consisted in a spoken agree- or forest management plans with a cut allowance to cover ment (Table 8). the household needs. Nowadays, these aspects have been improved in Romanian legislation. The small PFOs with- Table 8. Significant contingency table of top variables deter - mining the second dimension. out an FMP can harvest up to 5 m /year/ha, and if they Variables χ d.f. p.value exceed 20 m , they need an authorized forest company Q17–ClimateChange ~ Q7–Threat 20.606 8 0.0082 (Forestry Code 2015). Q14–Measures ~ Q9–Wood.Theft 25.06889 10 0.0052 For the Romanian PFOs, timber thieves, insect out- Q14–Measures ~ Q7–Threat 23.18693 10 0.0108 Q9–Wood.Theft ~ Q8–Guarding 15.89704 8 0.0438 breaks, or pests represented the most important threats. Q9–Wood.Theft ~ Q7–Threat 32.54323 4 1.48135e-06 A survey of 200 forest owners and managers at the Euro- Q8–Guarding ~ Q7–Threat 16.77123 8 0.0325 pean level showed that the top threats were pests, dis- eases and windstorms (Vinceti et al. 2020). 4. Discussions 4.1. Private forest owners’ perception about climate change and management constrains 4.2. Private forest owner adaptation behavior In our case study, 80% of respondents believed in climate A third of German PFOs have academic education and regarding climate change, they stated that it will influ - change, a similar attitude being identified by Semenza ence their forests, and adaptation it is a priority (Hengst- et al. (2011), 81% of respondents were aware of climate Ehrhart 2019). The education of French PFOs is hetero- change, and 15% did not think that climate change is geneous, varying from low education to master’s degree. occurring. In Belgium, almost all PFOs (95%) believe Few PFOs have adapted their practices and were inter- that climate change is happening and will continue ested in climate change trainings (Thomas et al. 2022). (Sousa-Silva et al. 2016). A study on 1000 French PFOs The increased interest on workshops and trainings on showed that 73% are aware of climate change. Most climate change was also identified in Canadian PFOs of them considered as climate change effects, the high (70%) (Bissonnette et al. 2017). intensity and frequency of droughts and storm events The first MCA dimension was determined by the (Thomas et al. 2022). expectancy to be exposed to a threat. From this dimension In Bostrom et al. (1994) study, the most mentioned can be drawn two PFO types: those with high education climate change effects were temperature increase, (13%) who were aware of forest regime regarding pri- changes in precipitation patterns, and chronic flooding, vate management and knew how to assess climate change which were also identie fi d in Semenza et al. (2011) study. risk compared to those whose only interest was obtaining The same climate change effects were mentioned by 60% wood. Also, Frank et al. (2011) acknowledged that social of Romanian PFOs. The Belgium PFOs mentioned the identity influences adaptive capacity. most the strong winds, heat waves, drought, and extreme The previous experience of German PFOs with vari- precipitations (Sousa-Silva et al. 2016). ous hazards was essential in assessing future damage Concerning triggering factors of climate change, in risk (Hengst-Ehrhart 2019). Perceiving a higher risk of Bostrom et al. (1994) study, 81% of respondents men- future damages did not make PFOs adapt forests at large tioned that human activities could be the cause of climate scale, focusing on tree or stand level (Pröbstl- Haider et al. change. Also, most French PFOs think climate change 2017; Hengst-Ehrhart 2019). In the case of small Cana- is human-induced (Thomas et al. 2022). The Canadian dian PFOs, the risks as pests, pathogens, temperature PFOs believed that human activities induced climate variations and precipitations were not especially linked change and the process is probably irreversible but with to climate change (Bissonnette et al. 2017). a low influence on their forests in short and medium In the second MCA dimension showed that the Roma- term (Bissonnette et al. 2017). Conversely, the Austrian nian PFOs’ risk experience played an essential role in PFOs considered that climate change will impact their adaptation (Nelson et al. 2016). Further was identified forests (Mostegl et al. 2019). In our case study, only 35% the PFOs type which was aware of threats to which for- of Romanian PFOs considered only human activities as est is exposed. This typology was also identified in the a triggering factor. Besides human activities, natural dis- Belgium case study where the PFOs experienced climate turbances were mentioned as a cause of climate change change and were knowledgeable about climate change by 30% of respondents in Leiserowitz et al. (2010) study, threats (Sousa-Silva et al. 2016). The second type of PFO while our results showed a lower percentage (12%). is characterized by indifference even if they knew about The analysis revealed that perceiving climate change threats, and the only concern is not to pay for marking in risk is a matter of priority. For instance, forest manage- case of natural disturbances. 209 C. Coşofreţ, L. Bouriaud / Cent. Eur. For. J. 68 (2022) 203–212 The Belgium PFOs believed and perceived the risk of Acknowledgement climate change (71%), but half of them did not consider This research was funded from European H2020, Grant 817903 the implementation of adaptation measures (Sousa-Silva EFFECT and by Fem4Forest – Forests in Women’s Hands, et al. 2016). If, for Austrian PFOs, the forest manage- project ID: DTP3-500-1.2 funded by European Union through ment was not a burden, the Romanian PFOs were over- Interreg Danube Transnational Programme. whelmed by forest management problems and the forest adaptation to climate change would become less urgent (Weber 2006; Poortinga et al. 2011). Instead, for Cana- references dian PFOs, the limited implication into forest manage- Ajzen, I.,1985: From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of ment was considered a barrier in adaptation to climate Planned Behavior. Action Control, p. 11–39. Avail- change (Bissonnette et al. 2017). Also a high share of able at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746- French PFOs did not adapt due to the following reasons: 3_2 the current legislation, lack of money, or other priorities Biernacki, P., Waldorf, D., 1981: Snowball sampling: Prob- on forest management (Thomas et al. 2022, Bissonnette lems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Socio- et al. 2017). logical Methods & Research, 10:141–163. Available The Grothmann and Patt model showed no possibility at: https://doi.org/10.1177/004912418101000205 of individual adaptation to climate change in a regula- Bissonnette, J. F., Dupras, J., Doyon, F., Chion, C., Tardif, tory context. Besides knowing that the climate is hap- J., 2017: Perceptions of small private forest owner’s pening, the adaptation process is inert (Thomas et al. vulnerability and adaptive capacity to environmental 2022). Another issue of Grothmann and Patt model is the disturbances and climate change: views from a het- avoidant maladaptation which suggests that only PFOs erogeneous population in southern Quebec, Canada. are responsible without considering the socio-economic Small-Scale Forestry, 16:367–393. Available at: and political context (Deuffic et al. 2020). https://DOI 10.1007/s11842-016-9361-y Blasius, J., Greenacre, M. J., 2014: Visualization and verbalization of data. (CRC Press.) 5. Conclusions Blennow, K., 2012: Adaptation of forest management In the Romanian context, the forest management adapta- to climate change among private individual forest tion to climate change is pending on PFOs’ perceptions owners in Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics, and views about the stressing problems of today’s forest 24:41–47. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. management. Perceptions and beliefs are strongly influ- forpol.2011.04.005 enced by socio-economic status and the majority believe Bostrom, A., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Read, D., that climate change affects the forests but not theirs. 1994: What do people know about global climate Supposing that the belief in climate change will change? Risk Analysis, 14(6):959–970. increase, and the implications in forest management Costa-Font, J., Mossialos, E., Rudisill, C., 2009: Opti- decisions will still be limited, in that case, the adapta- mism and the perceptions of new risks. Journal of tion of forests to climate change will not be their primary Risk Research, 12:27–41. Available at: https://doi. objective. org/10.1080/13669870802445800 In the literature, it was identified that no matter how Coşofreţ, C., Bouriaud, L., 2019: Which Silvicultural great the belief in climate change is and how strong cli- Measures Are Recommended To Adapt Forests To mate change impacts their forests, the PFOs return to Climate Change? A Literature Review. Bulletin of the the same inert routine of managing the forest after the Transilvania University of Brasov. Forestry, Wood initial emotions. However, a high request for trainings Industry, Agricultural Food Engineering. Series II, and workshops was observed because the PFOs want 12:13–34. Available at: https://doi.org/10.31926/ a better understanding of climate change impacts, adap- but.fwiafe.2019.12.61.1.2 tation measures and how can be applied to their small Coşofreţ, C., Duduman, G., Barnoaiea, I., Bouriaud, forest properties. O., 2022: Management or Climate and Which One Therefore, we assume that Romanian PFOs’ per- Has the Greatest Impact on Forest Soil’s Protective ceptions and beliefs about climate change impacts on Value? A Case Study in Romanian Mountains. For- their forests will follow the European trend and want to ests, 13: 916. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/ improve their knowledge about climate change impacts f13060916 and adaptive measures. An aggregation of interested PFOs, creating suitable communication channels for them and organization of training on forest management adaptation measures to climate change will be needed. 210 C. Coşofreţ, L. Bouriaud / Cent. Eur. For. J. 68 (2022) 203–212 Dale, V. H., Joyce, L. A., McNulty, S., Neilson, R. P., Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., 2010: Ayres, M. P., Flannigan, M. D. et al., 2001: Climate Climate change in the American mind: Americans’ change can affect forests by altering the frequency, global warming beliefs and attitudes in January 2010. intensity, duration, and timing of fire, drought, Climate Change, 1–10. Available at: http://e360.yale. introduced species, insect and pathogen outbreaks, edu/images/digest/AmericansGlobalWarmingBe- hurricanes, windstorms, ice storms, or landslides. liefs2010.pdf BioScience, 51:723–734. Available at: https://doi. Miao, Q., Welch, E. W., Zhang, F., Sriraj, P. S., 2018: org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0723:CCAFD] What drives public transit organizations in the 2.0.CO;2 United States to adapt to extreme weather events? Deuffic, P., Garms, M., He, J., Brahic, E., Yang, H., Journal of Environmental Management, 225:252– Mayer, M., 2020: Forest dieback, a tangible proof of 260. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenv- climate change? A cross-comparison of forest stake- man.2018.07.093 holders’ perceptions and strategies in the mountain Mostegl, N. M., Pröbstl-Haider, U., Jandl, R., Haider, forests of Europe and China. Environmental Man- W., 2019: Targeting climate change adaptation strat- agement, 66:858–872. Available at: https://doi. egies to small-scale private forest owners. Forest Pol- org/10.1007/s00267-020-01363-9 icy and Economics, 99:83–99. Available at: https:// Fazey, I., Gamarra, J. G., Fischer, J., Reed, M. S., doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.10.001 Stringer, L. C., Christie, M., 2010: Adaptation N e l s o n , H . W . , W i l l i a m s o n , T . B . , M a c a u l a y , C . , strategies for reducing vulnerability to future envi- Mahony, C., 2016: Assessing the potential for for- ronmental change. Frontiers in Ecology and the est management practitioner participation in cli- Environment, 8:414–422. Available at: https://doi. mate change adaptation. Forest Ecology and Man- org/10.1890/080215 agement, 360:388–399. Available at: https://doi. Fitzgerald, J., Lindner, M., 2013: Adapting to climate org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.09.038 change in European forests – results project of the Nichiforel, L., Keary, K., Deufc fi , P., Weiss, G., Thorsen, Adapting to climate change in European forests – B. J., Winkel, G., et al., 2018: How private are Europe’s results of the MOTIVE project. 110 p. private forests? A comparative property rights anal- Frank, E., Eakin, H., López-Carr, D, 2011: Social iden- ysis. Land Use Policy, 76:535–552. Available at: tity, perception and motivation in adaptation to cli- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.034 mate risk in the coffee sector of Chiapas, Mexico. Glo- O’Connor, R. E., Bard, R. J., Fisher, A., 1999: Risk bal Environmental Change, 21:66–76. Available at: Perceptions, General Environmental Beliefs, and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.11.001 W i l l i n g n e s s t o A d d r e s s C l i m a t e C h a n g e . R i s k Grothmann, T., Patt, A., 2005: Adaptive capacity and Analysis, 19:461–471. Available at: https://doi. human cognition: The process of individual adap- org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00421.x tation to climate change. Global Environmental Poortinga, W., Spence, A., Whitmarsh, L., Capstick, Change, 15:199–213. Available at: https://doi. S., Pidgeon, N. F., 2011: Uncertain climate: An org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.01.002 investigation into public scepticism about anthro- Hengst-Ehrhart, Y., 2019: Knowing is not enough: pogenic climate change. Global Environmental exploring the missing link between climate change Change, 21:1015–1024. Available at: https://doi. knowledge and action of German forest owners and org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.03.001 managers. Annals of Forest Science, 76:1–20. Avail- Pröbstl-Haider, U., Mostegl, N. M., Jandl, R., Formayer, able at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-019-0878-z H., Haider, W., Pukall, K. et al., 2017: Bereitschaft zur Hirsch, F., Schmithüsen, F. J., 2010: Private forest own- Klimaanpassung durch Kleinwaldbesitzer in Österre- ership in Europe. ETH Zurich, Vol. 26. Available at: ich. Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung 7/8:113–126 https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-006311424 Rogers, R. W., 1975: A Protection Motivation Theory of Husson, F., Le, S., Pagès, J., 2017: Exploratory Multivari- Fear Appeals and Attitude Change1. The Journal of ate Analysis by Example Using R, Second Edition. Psychology, 91, 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 Chapman and Hall/CRC. Available at: https://doi. 0223980.1975.9915803 org/10.1201/b21874 Rogers, R. W., 1983: Cognitive and physiological proc- Jandl, R., Spathelf, P., Bolte, A., Prescott, C. E., 2019: esses in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised Forest adaptation to climate change–is non-manage- theory of protection motivation. In Social psycho- ment an option? Annals of Forest Science, 7:48. Avail- physiology: A sourcebook, p. 153–176. able at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-019-0827-x Seidl, R., Schelhaas, M.-J., Lindner, M., Lexer, M. J., Kirilenko, A. P., Sedjo, R. A., 2007: Climate change 2009: Modelling bark beetle disturbances in a large impacts on forestry. Proceedings of the National scale forest scenario model to assess climate change Academy of Sciences of the United States of Amer- impacts and evaluate adaptive management strate- ica, 104:19697–19702. Available at: https://doi. gies. Regional Environmental Change, 9:101–119. org/10.1073/pnas.0701424104 Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-008- 0068-2 211 C. Coşofreţ, L. Bouriaud / Cent. Eur. For. J. 68 (2022) 203–212 Semenza, J. C., Hall, D. E., Wilson, D. J., Bontempo, B. Vinceti, B., Manica, M., Lauridsen, N., Verkerk, P. J., D., Sailor, D. J., George, L. A., 2008: Public percep- Lindner, M., Fady, B., 2020: Managing forest tion of climate change: voluntary mitigation and bar- genetic resources as a strategy to adapt forests to riers to behavior change. American journal of preven- climate change: perceptions of European forest tive medicine, 35:479–487. Available at: https://doi. owners and managers. European Journal of Forest org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.020 Research, 139:1107–1119. Available at: https://doi. Semenza, J. C., Ploubidis, G. B., George, L., 2011: Cli- org/10.1007/s10342-020-01311-6 mate change and climate variability: personal moti- Vulturius, G., André, K., Swartling, Å. G., Brown, C., vation for adaptation and mitigation. Environmental Rounsevell, M. D. A., Blanco, V., 2018: The rela- Health : A Global Access Science Source, 10:46. Avail- tive importance of subjective and structural factors able at: https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-10-46 for individual adaptation to climate change by forest Sousa-Silva, R., Ponette, Q., Verheyen, K., Van Herzele, owners in Sweden. Regional Environmental Change, A., Muys, B., 2016: Adaptation of forest management 18:511–520. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/ to climate change as perceived by forest owners and s10113-017-1218-1 managers in Belgium. Forest Ecosystems, 3:22. Weber, E. U., 2006: Experience-based and description- Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-016- based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global 0082-7 warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change, Sousa-Silva, R., Verbist, B., Lomba, Â., Valent, P., 77:103–120. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/ Suškevičs, M., Picard, O. et al., 2018: Adapting for- s10584-006-9060-3 est management to climate change in Europe: link- Yousefpour, R., Jacobsen, J. B., Meilby, H., Thorsen, B. ing perceptions to adaptive responses. Forest Policy J., 2014: Knowledge update in adaptive management and Economics, 90:22–30. Available at: https://doi. of forest resources under climate change: A Baye- org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.01.004 sian simulation approach. Annals of Forest Science, Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., Kalof, 71:301–312. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/ L., 1999: A value-belief-norm theory of support for s13595-013-0320-x social movements: The case of environmentalism. Zobeidi, T., Yaghoubi, J., Yazdanpanah, M., 2022: Human Ecology Review, 6:81–97. Available at: Farmers’ incremental adaptation to water scarcity: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24707060 An application of the model of private proactive adap- Thomas, J., Brunette, M., Leblois, A., 2022: The deter- tation to climate change (MPPACC). Agricultural minants of adapting forest management practices Water Management, 264 p. Available at: https://doi. to climate change: lessons from a survey of French org/10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107528 private forest owners. Forest Policy and Economics, Other sources 135, 102662. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. CPF, 2008: Strategic framework for forests and climate forpol.2021.102662 change. A proposal by the Collaborative Partnership Tomlinson, J., Rhiney, K., 2018: Assessing the role of on Forests for a coordinated forest-sector response farmer e fi ld schools in promoting pro-adaptive behav - to climate change. The Collaborative Partnership on iour towards climate change among Jamaican farm- Forests. ers. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Forestry Code, 2015: Law 133/2015 modified previous 8:86–98. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/ version of Law46/2008. s13412-017-0461-6 R Core Team, 2019: R: A language and environment for van Gameren, V., Zaccai, E., 2015: Private forest owners statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical facing climate change in Wallonia: Adaptive capac- Computing. https://www.r-project.org/. ity and practices. Environmental Science and Policy, 52:51–60. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. envsci.2015.05.004 Vacek, Z., Vacek, S., Slanař, J., Bílek, L., Bulušek, D., Štefančík, I. et al., 2019: Adaption of Norway spruce and European beech forests under climate change: from resistance to close-to-nature silviculture. Cen- tral European Forestry Journal, 65:129–144. Avail- able at: https://doi.org/10.2478/forj-2019-0013 212 C. Coşofreţ, L. Bouriaud / Cent. Eur. For. J. 68 (2022) 203–212 Appendix Table. 1. Questions fitting MPPACC model and analyzed using Multiple Correspondence Analysis. Questions abbreviation in italic are open questions and in bold are close–ended questions) Model of private proactive adaptation to climate change No. Crt. Eg.: Q1– question number and RetrLaw – abbrevation used in Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MPPACC) MCA Reliance on public adaptation and public forest policy 1 Q6–Mngmnt, Q10–Harvesting, Q11–expectation, Q13–Intentions (Table 2) 2 Risk experience appraisal (Table 3) Q7–Threat, Q8–guarding, Q9–Wood.Theft, Q12–p rbl.Bnft, Q15–For.Access Q1–RetrLaw, Q2–Area, Q3–Age, Q4–Composition, Q5–Dist, Q22–Ownertype, Q23–Studies, 3 Cognitive biases/heuristics (Table 4) Q24–ForestryStud, Q25–TrainingCC, Q26–InformationCC, Q27–WatchTV, Q28–InfAb- For, Q29–WhoMng Climate change risk appraisal (Perceived probability) 4 Q17–ClimateChange, Q19–CausesCC, Q21–InsectAttack (Table 5) Climate change risk appraisal (Perceived severity) 5 Q18–effectsCC, Q20–realthreatCC (Table 6) Other risks on forests/threats (Forest regime, Measures) 6 Q16–For.regime, Q14–Measures (Table 7) Table 2. The most contributing variables in Multiple Correspondence Analysis dimensions. MCA Dimension 1 MCA Dimension 2 Variables R2 p.value Variables R2 p.value Q17–ClimateChange 0.349192 1.22E–15 Q17–ClimateChange 0.307479 2.54776E-13 Q23–Studies 0.290377 5.07E–15 Q14–Measures 0.28201 2.52922E-11 Q16–For.regime 0.306051 5.41E–14 Q9–Wood.Theft 0.236561 3.68905E-11 Q20–RealThreatCC 0.284336 1.17E–13 Q8–Guarding 0.260572 6.9465E-11 Q18–EffectsCC 0.29401 1.33E–12 Q7–Threat 0.244015 9.48933E-11 Q6–Mngmnt 0.266881 1.45E–10 Q5–Dist 0.223799 9.40973E-10 ForestryStud 0.150218 7.03E–08 Prbl.Bnft 0.215449 2.38227E-09 CausesCC 0.179285 1.18E–07 EffectsCC 0.199481 5.82313E-08 InformationCC 0.192219 1.24E–07 CausesCC 0.168386 3.67703E-07 TrainingCC 0.144599 1.29E–07 Composition 0.15793 1.07824E-06 Measures 0.176371 2.13E–06 Harvesting 0.124275 7.42572E-06 Expectation 0.152274 7.00E–06 Ownertype 0.139506 2.40377E-05 Composition 0.138708 7.48E–06 Intentions 0.15449 0.000120057 Dist 0.129436 1.87E–05 InfAbFor 0.108888 0.000136113 Guarding 0.139818 2.33E–05 RealThreatCC 0.067769 0.001939069 InfAbFor 0.12306 3.48E–05 Expectation 0.083477 0.003891153 Threat 0.103878 2.19E–04 Mngmnt 0.090615 0.004970608 WhoMng 0.087791 2.81E–04 WatchTV 0.048664 0.01179569 WatchTV 0.062932 3.07E–03 TrainingCC 0.02789 0.02463685 Prbl.Bnft 0.071642 4.23E–03 Area 0.040514 2.52E–02 Intentions 0.079414 4.27E–02 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Forestry Journal de Gruyter

Perceived climate change risks among other risks affecting private forest owners in a top-down decision-making process

Coşofreţ, Cosmin; Bouriaud, Laura
Forestry Journal , Volume 68 (4): 11 – Dec 1, 2022
Download PDF
11 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/de-gruyter/perceived-climate-change-risks-among-other-risks-affecting-private-wYp7e7dyWk
Publisher
de Gruyter
Copyright
© 2022 Cosmin Coşofreţ et al., published by Sciendo
ISSN
0323-1046
eISSN
2454-0358
DOI
10.2478/forj-2022-0012
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Forest management adaptation to climate change is a matter of forest type, disturbances regime, and forest owners’ behavior face the climate change issue. Knowing factors that determine people respond to climate change challenges is essential to explaining their perceptions of climate change adaptation. We have conducted a study in North-Eastern Romania applying the Model of Private Proactive Adaptation to Climate Change. The aim was to identify private forest owners’ perceptions about climate change and forest management threats and constraints and to analyse what variables differentiate private forest owners’ adaptation behavior. The PFOs with higher education were aware of the forest regime regarding private management. They knew how to assess climate change risk, while those with secondary education were the only interest was obtaining wood. The PFOs’ risk experience played an important role in adaptation. The perceptions and beliefs of PFOs were strongly influenced by socio-economic status, and they believe in climate change effects on forests but not on theirs. Adaption has become less urgent because forest management problems blur climate change beliefs. Assuming that the Romanian PFOs’ perceptions and beliefs about climate change will follow the European trend, they will want to improve their knowledge about climate change impacts and adaptive measures. Therefore, aggregating the interested PFOs, creating suitable communication channels, and organizing trainings on forest management adaptation to climate change will be needed to prevent this need. Key words: local climate change adaptation; private forest owner (PFO); perceptions; top-down decision Editor: Zuzana Sarvašová et al. 2016; Coşofreţ et al. 2022). Climate change projec- 1. Introduction tions on forests reveal a significant impact (Kirilenko & More than 50% of European forests are private (Hirsch Sedjo 2007): increased frequency and intensity of pest & Schmithüsen 2010), the percentage being similar for outbreaks, windstorms, or landslides (Seidl et al. 2009; Romanian forests. If in developed countries from the NW Vacek et al. 2019). In addition, the interaction of natural part of Europe, PFOs (private forest owners) can man- disturbances with anthropic disturbances has a different age their forests directly, in the former socialist countries impact on the environment (Dale et al. 2001). from the Central and SE part of Europe, and the State Individual perceptions of climate change and associ- requires that management implementation to be done ated risks differed from others (Blennow 2012), Semenza by forestry professionals (Nichiforel et al. 2018) et al. (2008) identified several categories of individuals’ Climate change proved to be a novel issue and a chal- perceptions. First, although most of the population is lenge for individuals, organizations, and governments aware of climate change at the global level, often was (Nelson et al. 2016; Sousa-Silva et al. 2016). The com- perceived as less urgent in everyday life due to the large bination of warming, alteration of precipitation regime, degree of uncertainty (Weber 2006; Costa-Font et al. unpredictable pattern of extreme events, and distur- 2009; Poortinga et al. 2011). bances regime fundamentally affects the forests (Jandl However, uncertainty regarding the degree of climate et al. 2019). change and its impact on forest resources has resulted Despite the uncertainties, the scientific community in controversial and contradictory perceptions about the has reached a consensus that human activity profoundly need and how to adapt to climate change (Yousefpour impacts the occurrence of climate change (Sousa-Silva et al. 2014). *Corresponding author. Cosmin Coşofreţ, e-mail: cosmin.cosofret@usm.ro © 2022 Authors. This is an open access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. C. Coşofreţ, L. Bouriaud / Cent. Eur. For. J. 68 (2022) 203–212 Climate change adaptation has become a significant beliefs can play an important role or can be a barrier in challenge because adaptation will reduce vulnerability the adaptation process due to knowledge gaps (O’Connor and increase climate resilience to changes (Fitzgerald & et al. 1999; Nelson et al. 2016). Finally, Vulturius et al. Lindner 2013; Sousa-Silva et al. 2018;Coşofreţ & Bouri- (2018) assessed and compared the subjective influence aud 2019). Climate change adaptation in forestry has to and structural factors on Swedish forest owners’ views be taken at every hierarchical level of decision-making, and intentions regarding climate change adaptation in the end, the key actors are forest owners and managers through MPPACC. (CPF 2008). The low implication of Romanian PFOs in Therefore, the study aims to apply MPPACC to iden- taking decisions (Nichiforel et al. 2018) led to a lack of tify PFOs’ perceptions about climate change and forest long-term adaptation strategies. In other European coun- management threats and constraints. We addressed two tries, PFOs’ views about adaptation to climate change research objectives: i) to analyze how PFOs perceive cli- represent an important input (Fazey et al. 2010; Blennow mate change and its influence on their forests, and ii) to 2012; van Gameren & Zaccai 2015). determine what variables differentiate PFO adaptation The identification of cognitive factors that influence behavior. adaptation was done through different behavioral theo- ries (Zobeidi et al. 2022) as the theory of planned behav- ior (Ajzen 1985), protection motivation theory (Rogers 2. Material and methods 1975) or theory of values-beliefs-norms (Stern et al. 2.1. Data collection 1999). The methodological approaches have evolved to have a practical approach for recognizing adaptive capac- The unfinished heritage restitution did not allow us ity (Zobeidi et al. 2022). The Model of Private Proactive to do a stratified sampling, then the PFOs’ identifica - Adaptation to Climate Change (MPPACC) represents tion was made through snowball sampling. The non- one of the approaches (Grothmann & Patt 2005) where probability technique does not determine the sampling perceived adaptive capacity was highlighted as the most error and is used when the sample is not easily available important bottleneck in adaptation. The perceived adap- (Biernacki & Waldorf 1981). tive capacity was inu fl enced by social identity (Frank et al. The unofficial estimates show 950 PFOs in the fol - 2011). These concepts were not always consistent, even lowing municipalities of Suceava county, Romania: if they correlated with objective adaptive capacity due to Moldoviţa, Vama, Frasin, Ostra and Stulpicani (Fig. 1) cognitive biases and heuristics (Miao et al. 2018). These and for assessing the perceptions and behavior about concepts showed that the perceived adaptive capacity climate change, we questioned 182 PFOs, in 2014. was considered more important in coping with future The share of private forests varies in analyzed munici- climatic changes (Tomlinson & Rhiney 2018). Psycho- palities, the highest percentage being in Vama in the logical factors like awareness, perception of risk and opposite being Stulpicani (Table 1). Fig. 1. Study location. 204 C. Coşofreţ, L. Bouriaud / Cent. Eur. For. J. 68 (2022) 203–212 Table 1. Forest ownership in the analyzed municipality. The second component of the model comprised cli- State Private mate change risk appraisal (perceived probability or Total forest area Questioned Municipality forest area forest area [ha] PFOs expectancy to be exposed to a threat and perceived sever- [%] ity or threat severity impacts on things valued by PFOs) Moldoviţa 17813 79 21 44 Vama 13479 44 56 49 (Table 5). Finally, other risks were den fi ed by knowledge Frasin 6659 75 25 15 about the forest regime and measures taken by State. Its Stulpicani 16506 78 12 46 Ostra 9379 55 45 28 implication in private forest management highlights the threats and struggles faced by PFOs in managing their forests (Table 6). 2.2. Theoretical framework and conceptual model For studying PFOs’ perception of climate change, we 2.3. Data analysis chose the socio-cognitive model of private proactive For identification PFOs’ perceptions about climate adaptation to climate change because the frame included change, the Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) the public policies, individual cognition and individual method was used, which is suitable for describing, ana- perception of adaptive capacity. The Grothmann & Patt lyzing, and visualizing qualitative information (Blasius model (Grothmann & Patt 2005) is based on Protection & Greenacre 2014). Motivation Theory (Rogers 1983) and broadly applies to Based on MCA were analyzed the relations among different fields of interest. respondents and variables. The individuals’ description The Grothmann and Patt model was adapted to depends on variables that best discriminate the respon- Romanian institutional and policy conditions being dents’ population (Blasius & Greenacre 2014). The added variable (Other Risks) unrelated to climate change variables and categories, most characteristic according (Fig. 2). to each dimension, were obtained with dimdesc function The questions fitted to the MPPACC model created (Husson et al. 2017). two important components (Table 1 in Appendix). The The top variables which determined the MCA dimen- first component included: reliance on public adaptation sions were analyzed through contingency tables and and public policy (status of the managed forest) (Table tested their significance with Pearson’s chi test. Data 2), risk experience appraisal (main threats for their for- analysis was performed with the library FactoMineR est) (Table 3), and cognitive biases and heuristics (factors (Husson et al. 2017) from R (R Core Team 2019). that can affect the adaptation capacity) (Table 4). Fig. 2. Model of Private Proactive Adaptation to Climate Change adapted to Romanian institutional and policy conditions. 205 C. Coşofreţ, L. Bouriaud / Cent. Eur. For. J. 68 (2022) 203–212 benefits of becoming forest owners made forest access 3. results to their property, not a problem (Table 3). 3.1. Private forest owners’ perception about climate change and management constrains Table 3. Forest management problems and threats for the pri- vate forest owner. The reliance on public adaptation and public forest policy Q7 – Threat. Which are the most important threats for your forest? Proportion was assessed through questions about management, har- N=173 [%] vesting, expectation and intentions. The possibility of Timber thieves 38 Insect outbreaks and pests 25 deciding on the future utilization of their forest led to 30% No threats, in fact 16 of PFOs who wanted to harvest their forests for different Forest administration and forest managers 9 Windthrows 9 needs but almost half complied with the forest manage- Landslides 4 ment plan. Half of the PFOs did not harvest last year, Q8 – Guarding. How did you ensure the guarding of the forest received back? and those did for firewood. After the restitution process, N=182 Spoken agreement with the forester 37 the PFOs’ expectations were related to their convenience With my family 24 (easy acquisition of firewood and wood for household Paid somebody 17 needs) for half of the PFOs, and the rest inherited their Was not necessary 17 Could not ensure the forest guarding 4 descendants. The future intention of PFOs was to keep Q9 – Wood.Theft. Has your forest been the subject of timber theft during the the forests and only less than 10% of PFOs wanted to latest two years? N=182 No 54 clear cut it (Table 2). Yes 32 I do not know 14 Q12 – Prbl.Bnft. For you, now, what does it mean to own a forest? N=182 Table 2. The private forest owners’ opinions about freedom of More benefits 68 decision about forest management, harvesting, expectations More problems 32 and future intentions with their forest property (N=182). Q15 – For.Access. Who has access to your forest? N=182 Q6 – Mngmt. If you had the freedom of decision in managing Everybody 51 Proportion The forester 19 your forest, what future forest utilization would you prefer? [%] My family 15 * Q6 – question number, Mngmt – abbreviation The owner 7 Firewood and construction wood 33 No one 7 Keep the forest as such 27 Comply with FMP provisions 19 Clear cut 10 The factors affecting adaptation capacity (cognitive Others 8 Protecting the forest 3 biases and heuristics) were assessed by describing the Q10 – Harvesting. Did you harvest wood from your private forest property in the restitution process and identifying the PFO profile. The last year? r fi st restitution law from 1991 dispossessed 47% of PFO, No 40 yes, firewood 40 34% by the second restitution law in 2000, and 19% by the yes, woodwork 15 third restitution law in 2005. At the restitution moment, I refuse to answer/ I do not know 6 Q11 – Expectation. When you get back your forest, what do you think or expect? more than 60% of forest stands were mature (suitable not obliged to buy firewood 25 for harvesting), and the forest composition was domi- wood for household needs 24 nated by coniferous (58%) and mixed stands (34%). Most inheritance 18 finally got back what was yours 14 PFOs were unassociated, did not have higher education earn money by selling wood 7 or forestry studies, and did not participate in nature additional places for grazing 7 can sell the land 2 protection and climate change training. The source of deforestation 1 information regarding climate change was news and TV I do not remember / I refuse to answer 1 shows about climate change, most of them watched TV other 1 Q13 – Intentions. What are your intentions for the future with your forest land? daily. The PFOs trusted the forester to share the informa- keep the same land use 59 tion about the forest, and forest professionals did forest no clear intentions 12 undertake afforestation 10 management (73%) (Table 4). clear cut 9 Climate change risks were appraised through ques- sell it 6 use as grasslands 3 tions about climate change’s causes and future effects. fence the forest 1 The PFOs believe in the existence of climate change (80%) and that the global warming from the last decade The risk experience was appraised through questions had anthropogenic (35%) and mixed causes (34%). In about the problems and benefits of forest management. the case of natural disturbances, the PFOs decided to In the PFOs‘ opinion, the main threats were represented cut the affected trees (60%), and 11% would use insec- by timber thieves, insect outbreaks or pests. The timber ticides. In the next 50 years, the PFOs thought that cli- thieves represented a significant threat because forest mate change effects would be diverse, from catastrophic guarding was not done properly due to the different events to temperature and rainfall regime changes. Even socio-economic conditions of PFOs. However, in the last if many respondents believed in climate change, they did two years, most PFOs were not stolen. In addition, the not consider it a threat to their forests (44%) (Table 5). 206 C. Coşofreţ, L. Bouriaud / Cent. Eur. For. J. 68 (2022) 203–212 Table 4. Forest characteristics (N=182). Table 5. Climate change opinions. Proportion Q17 – ClimateChange. Which of the following opinions about Proportion Q1 – RetrLaw. In which year did you receive back your forest? [%] climate change is closest to your opinion (tick one option ) [%] Law 18/1991 – first restitution law – (1 ha/PFO) 48 Climate change is quite obvious 57 Law 1/2000 – second restitution law – (10 ha/PFO) 33 Climate change is a fact undeniable 23 Law 247/2005 – third restitution law – (Restitutio in integrum) 19 Climate change cannot be proven at this time 10 Q2 – Area. Which is the area of your forest? I do not believe in climate change 10 <5 ha 83 I do not know 1 5–10 ha 12 Q19 – CausesCC. In your opinion, the global warming in the last decade is due to >10 ha 5 (check only one answer) Q3 – Age. How old is your forests? Only human activity (industrial development, pollution, population >100 40 growth, etc. ) 80–99 24 That both human activities and natural causes (natural and anthro- 60–79 20 pogenic) 40–59 9 I do not know 20 20–39 5 Purely natural causes (cannot be controlled) 12 <20 2 Q21 – InsectAttack. If your forest is at risk of dying due to of outbreaks or drought, Q4 – Composition. Tree species composition what measures do you think should be taken? Coniferous 57 Cutting the affected trees 60 Mixed forests 34 Silvicultural treatments 17 Broadleaves 8 Insecticides 11 Q5 – Dist. The distance from the owner’s house? I do not know 5 5–10 km 43 Talk with the experts 4 3–5 km 30 Other 3 >10 km 17 Q18 – EffectsCC. In your opinion, for the next 50 years, the effect of climate <1 km 10 change will be manifested by (tick the three options) Q22 – Qwnertype. In which owner category do you belong? Tendency to catastrophic climate events (floods, droughts, storms, Unassociated forest owner 81 etc.) Member of a rural community 9 Extreme temperature variations 17 Forest owner joined an association 6 Rising the temperature 15 Owner land 3 Essential changes in hydrology (flood, flow reduction, drying up Other 1 Q23 – Studies. Levels of studies? springs, etc.) Secondary education 87 I do not know 10 Essential changes to the local climate (desertification, aridity, etc.) 7 Higher education 13 Q24 – ForestryStud. Forestry studies? Decrease the rainfall 5 Increase the rainfall 3 No 91 Yes 9 Will be no changes to the present / same climate as that now 3 Q25 – TrainingCC. Have you taken part at courses/training in the field of climate It cannot be said 3 Lowering the temperature 2 change and protection of nature Another opinion : 2 No 93 Q20 – RealthreatCC. For your forest, the climate change is a real threat? Yes 7 No 44 Q26 – InformationCC. Regarding climate change, which is the primary source of Yes 31 information? I do not know 25 Journal news 53 TV shows on the subject 33 Internet 10 PFOs can face other risks related to their knowledge Discussions with the colleagues 3 about the forest regime, and almost 70% of respondents Other 1 Q27 – WatchTV. How often do You watch TV news? knew too little about it. Also, the State should help them Every day 71 have a better guard and subsidize the professional forest 2–3 times a week 24 Hardly ever 3 services for small PFOs (Table 6). Several times a month 2 Q28 – InfAbFor. Who do you trust for the transmission of knowledge about the forest? Table 6. The opinions about the measures that the State The forester 54 should take to help the private forest owners N=182. No one 24 Q14 – Measures. Which is your opinion about the State’s measures Proportion The family 12 to help the private forest owners? [%] Everyone 10 To oblige the forest districts to guard the private forests against Q29 – WhoMng. Who administers your forest? Do you have contract for services timber theft (guard) with the forest district? To subsidize professional forest services 18 Forest district 73 To inform and teach us about how to manage the forest 16 I do not have 15 Something else 10 Family 12 To change for non–compulsory the current obligation of wood mark- ing previous to harvesting To help us to create associations with other owners for managing forests together I do not know 8 To buy our forests at market prices 4 Q16 – For.regime. What do you know about forest regime? I know too little 39 I have not heard. I do not know 31 I know rather well what does it means 18 I know very well what does it means 12 207 C. Coşofreţ, L. Bouriaud / Cent. Eur. For. J. 68 (2022) 203–212 The PFOs with medium education did not acknowl- 3.2. Private forest owners‘ adaptation edge climate change as a threat and had little knowledge behavior about the forest regime, while those with higher educa- The projected variables (questions) had low variance tion showed the opposite. If they do not admit climate (19.2%-considered standard in MCA), and we resumed change as a threat, the knowledge about climate change our analysis of PFOs’ distribution only on two dimen- effects is expected to be limited (Table 7). sions (Fig. 3). The first dimension variables were Q16 – For.regime Table 7. Significant contingency table of top variables deter - and Q6 – Mngmnt, which den fi e PFO’s perception of the mining the first dimension. forest, Q23 – Studies that showed their educational back- Variables χ d.f* p.value Q20–RealThreatCC ~ Q16–For.regime 14.74627 6 0.0223 ground and Q17 – Climate change, Q20 – RealThreatCC, Q20–RealThreatCC ~ Q6–Mngmnt 17.71938 8 0.0234 Q18 – EffectsCC, which describe climate change threats. Q20–RealThreatCC ~ Q23–Studies 12.1707 2 0.0022 Q18–EffectsCC ~ Q6–Mngmnt 32.72876 16 0.0081 The first dimension explained the expectancy of being Q23–Studies ~ Q16–For.regime 15.16537 3 0.0016 exposed to a threat. *d.f. – degree of freedom. The most characteristic variables for the second dimension were Q9 – Wood theft, Q7 – Threat, Q8 – The comparative analysis between variables that Guarding, which highlighted the PFOs’ perceptions of determined the second MCA dimension resulted in six threats more imminent than climate change even if they significant contingency tables. In this respect, the PFOs believe in it (Q17 – Climate Change). The fact that vari- that believed in climate change were more affected by ables Q14 – Measures and Q5 – Dist also determined the natural or anthropic disturbances than nonbelievers who second dimension showed that the risk experience has an did not experience any threats. On the other hand, there essential role in adaptation (Table 2 in Appendix). was no difference between PFOs (stolen or not) regard- From the comprehensive comparative analysis of top ing forest services (marking and guarding), both wishing variables which created the r fi st dimension, only v fi e were them free. found significant ( p.value <0.05) and further analyzed. In the case of natural (insect outbreaks and pests) The PFOs who said that climate change is not a real threat and anthropic disturbances, the PFO wanted a better had a greater incidence of not knowing what is forest and free guard from forest districts. The need for pro- regime, while those who said that climate change is real fessional services was found at PFOs, which were stolen. also had some knowledge about forest regime. Analyz- In contrast, those who considered guard unnecessary did ing management and climate change threats resulted in not observe wood thefts due to low implications or young the PFOs that did not believe in climate change threats forest stands, which are less attractive for wood thieves. would manage their forest for wood production, while those who admitted it had a more protective approach. Fig. 3. Most characteristic variables for Multiple Correspondence Analysis first and the second dimension. 208 C. Coşofreţ, L. Bouriaud / Cent. Eur. For. J. 68 (2022) 203–212 The PFOs who had not been stolen and did not con- ment is problematic in the perception of the forest owners, sider guarding necessary were affected by natural distur- with many unsolved issues (Blennow 2012). The strong bances or did not face any threats. Instead, timber thieves desire of Romanian PFOs to have enough firewood and stole the PFOs affected by anthropic disturbances, and construction wood covered forest ownership problems such as guarding forests, obtaining harvesting permits, the guard of private forests consisted in a spoken agree- or forest management plans with a cut allowance to cover ment (Table 8). the household needs. Nowadays, these aspects have been improved in Romanian legislation. The small PFOs with- Table 8. Significant contingency table of top variables deter - mining the second dimension. out an FMP can harvest up to 5 m /year/ha, and if they Variables χ d.f. p.value exceed 20 m , they need an authorized forest company Q17–ClimateChange ~ Q7–Threat 20.606 8 0.0082 (Forestry Code 2015). Q14–Measures ~ Q9–Wood.Theft 25.06889 10 0.0052 For the Romanian PFOs, timber thieves, insect out- Q14–Measures ~ Q7–Threat 23.18693 10 0.0108 Q9–Wood.Theft ~ Q8–Guarding 15.89704 8 0.0438 breaks, or pests represented the most important threats. Q9–Wood.Theft ~ Q7–Threat 32.54323 4 1.48135e-06 A survey of 200 forest owners and managers at the Euro- Q8–Guarding ~ Q7–Threat 16.77123 8 0.0325 pean level showed that the top threats were pests, dis- eases and windstorms (Vinceti et al. 2020). 4. Discussions 4.1. Private forest owners’ perception about climate change and management constrains 4.2. Private forest owner adaptation behavior In our case study, 80% of respondents believed in climate A third of German PFOs have academic education and regarding climate change, they stated that it will influ - change, a similar attitude being identified by Semenza ence their forests, and adaptation it is a priority (Hengst- et al. (2011), 81% of respondents were aware of climate Ehrhart 2019). The education of French PFOs is hetero- change, and 15% did not think that climate change is geneous, varying from low education to master’s degree. occurring. In Belgium, almost all PFOs (95%) believe Few PFOs have adapted their practices and were inter- that climate change is happening and will continue ested in climate change trainings (Thomas et al. 2022). (Sousa-Silva et al. 2016). A study on 1000 French PFOs The increased interest on workshops and trainings on showed that 73% are aware of climate change. Most climate change was also identified in Canadian PFOs of them considered as climate change effects, the high (70%) (Bissonnette et al. 2017). intensity and frequency of droughts and storm events The first MCA dimension was determined by the (Thomas et al. 2022). expectancy to be exposed to a threat. From this dimension In Bostrom et al. (1994) study, the most mentioned can be drawn two PFO types: those with high education climate change effects were temperature increase, (13%) who were aware of forest regime regarding pri- changes in precipitation patterns, and chronic flooding, vate management and knew how to assess climate change which were also identie fi d in Semenza et al. (2011) study. risk compared to those whose only interest was obtaining The same climate change effects were mentioned by 60% wood. Also, Frank et al. (2011) acknowledged that social of Romanian PFOs. The Belgium PFOs mentioned the identity influences adaptive capacity. most the strong winds, heat waves, drought, and extreme The previous experience of German PFOs with vari- precipitations (Sousa-Silva et al. 2016). ous hazards was essential in assessing future damage Concerning triggering factors of climate change, in risk (Hengst-Ehrhart 2019). Perceiving a higher risk of Bostrom et al. (1994) study, 81% of respondents men- future damages did not make PFOs adapt forests at large tioned that human activities could be the cause of climate scale, focusing on tree or stand level (Pröbstl- Haider et al. change. Also, most French PFOs think climate change 2017; Hengst-Ehrhart 2019). In the case of small Cana- is human-induced (Thomas et al. 2022). The Canadian dian PFOs, the risks as pests, pathogens, temperature PFOs believed that human activities induced climate variations and precipitations were not especially linked change and the process is probably irreversible but with to climate change (Bissonnette et al. 2017). a low influence on their forests in short and medium In the second MCA dimension showed that the Roma- term (Bissonnette et al. 2017). Conversely, the Austrian nian PFOs’ risk experience played an essential role in PFOs considered that climate change will impact their adaptation (Nelson et al. 2016). Further was identified forests (Mostegl et al. 2019). In our case study, only 35% the PFOs type which was aware of threats to which for- of Romanian PFOs considered only human activities as est is exposed. This typology was also identified in the a triggering factor. Besides human activities, natural dis- Belgium case study where the PFOs experienced climate turbances were mentioned as a cause of climate change change and were knowledgeable about climate change by 30% of respondents in Leiserowitz et al. (2010) study, threats (Sousa-Silva et al. 2016). The second type of PFO while our results showed a lower percentage (12%). is characterized by indifference even if they knew about The analysis revealed that perceiving climate change threats, and the only concern is not to pay for marking in risk is a matter of priority. For instance, forest manage- case of natural disturbances. 209 C. Coşofreţ, L. Bouriaud / Cent. Eur. For. J. 68 (2022) 203–212 The Belgium PFOs believed and perceived the risk of Acknowledgement climate change (71%), but half of them did not consider This research was funded from European H2020, Grant 817903 the implementation of adaptation measures (Sousa-Silva EFFECT and by Fem4Forest – Forests in Women’s Hands, et al. 2016). If, for Austrian PFOs, the forest manage- project ID: DTP3-500-1.2 funded by European Union through ment was not a burden, the Romanian PFOs were over- Interreg Danube Transnational Programme. whelmed by forest management problems and the forest adaptation to climate change would become less urgent (Weber 2006; Poortinga et al. 2011). Instead, for Cana- references dian PFOs, the limited implication into forest manage- Ajzen, I.,1985: From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of ment was considered a barrier in adaptation to climate Planned Behavior. Action Control, p. 11–39. Avail- change (Bissonnette et al. 2017). Also a high share of able at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746- French PFOs did not adapt due to the following reasons: 3_2 the current legislation, lack of money, or other priorities Biernacki, P., Waldorf, D., 1981: Snowball sampling: Prob- on forest management (Thomas et al. 2022, Bissonnette lems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Socio- et al. 2017). logical Methods & Research, 10:141–163. Available The Grothmann and Patt model showed no possibility at: https://doi.org/10.1177/004912418101000205 of individual adaptation to climate change in a regula- Bissonnette, J. F., Dupras, J., Doyon, F., Chion, C., Tardif, tory context. Besides knowing that the climate is hap- J., 2017: Perceptions of small private forest owner’s pening, the adaptation process is inert (Thomas et al. vulnerability and adaptive capacity to environmental 2022). Another issue of Grothmann and Patt model is the disturbances and climate change: views from a het- avoidant maladaptation which suggests that only PFOs erogeneous population in southern Quebec, Canada. are responsible without considering the socio-economic Small-Scale Forestry, 16:367–393. Available at: and political context (Deuffic et al. 2020). https://DOI 10.1007/s11842-016-9361-y Blasius, J., Greenacre, M. J., 2014: Visualization and verbalization of data. (CRC Press.) 5. Conclusions Blennow, K., 2012: Adaptation of forest management In the Romanian context, the forest management adapta- to climate change among private individual forest tion to climate change is pending on PFOs’ perceptions owners in Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics, and views about the stressing problems of today’s forest 24:41–47. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. management. Perceptions and beliefs are strongly influ- forpol.2011.04.005 enced by socio-economic status and the majority believe Bostrom, A., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Read, D., that climate change affects the forests but not theirs. 1994: What do people know about global climate Supposing that the belief in climate change will change? Risk Analysis, 14(6):959–970. increase, and the implications in forest management Costa-Font, J., Mossialos, E., Rudisill, C., 2009: Opti- decisions will still be limited, in that case, the adapta- mism and the perceptions of new risks. Journal of tion of forests to climate change will not be their primary Risk Research, 12:27–41. Available at: https://doi. objective. org/10.1080/13669870802445800 In the literature, it was identified that no matter how Coşofreţ, C., Bouriaud, L., 2019: Which Silvicultural great the belief in climate change is and how strong cli- Measures Are Recommended To Adapt Forests To mate change impacts their forests, the PFOs return to Climate Change? A Literature Review. Bulletin of the the same inert routine of managing the forest after the Transilvania University of Brasov. Forestry, Wood initial emotions. However, a high request for trainings Industry, Agricultural Food Engineering. Series II, and workshops was observed because the PFOs want 12:13–34. Available at: https://doi.org/10.31926/ a better understanding of climate change impacts, adap- but.fwiafe.2019.12.61.1.2 tation measures and how can be applied to their small Coşofreţ, C., Duduman, G., Barnoaiea, I., Bouriaud, forest properties. O., 2022: Management or Climate and Which One Therefore, we assume that Romanian PFOs’ per- Has the Greatest Impact on Forest Soil’s Protective ceptions and beliefs about climate change impacts on Value? A Case Study in Romanian Mountains. For- their forests will follow the European trend and want to ests, 13: 916. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/ improve their knowledge about climate change impacts f13060916 and adaptive measures. An aggregation of interested PFOs, creating suitable communication channels for them and organization of training on forest management adaptation measures to climate change will be needed. 210 C. Coşofreţ, L. Bouriaud / Cent. Eur. For. J. 68 (2022) 203–212 Dale, V. H., Joyce, L. A., McNulty, S., Neilson, R. P., Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., 2010: Ayres, M. P., Flannigan, M. D. et al., 2001: Climate Climate change in the American mind: Americans’ change can affect forests by altering the frequency, global warming beliefs and attitudes in January 2010. intensity, duration, and timing of fire, drought, Climate Change, 1–10. Available at: http://e360.yale. introduced species, insect and pathogen outbreaks, edu/images/digest/AmericansGlobalWarmingBe- hurricanes, windstorms, ice storms, or landslides. liefs2010.pdf BioScience, 51:723–734. Available at: https://doi. Miao, Q., Welch, E. W., Zhang, F., Sriraj, P. S., 2018: org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0723:CCAFD] What drives public transit organizations in the 2.0.CO;2 United States to adapt to extreme weather events? Deuffic, P., Garms, M., He, J., Brahic, E., Yang, H., Journal of Environmental Management, 225:252– Mayer, M., 2020: Forest dieback, a tangible proof of 260. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenv- climate change? A cross-comparison of forest stake- man.2018.07.093 holders’ perceptions and strategies in the mountain Mostegl, N. M., Pröbstl-Haider, U., Jandl, R., Haider, forests of Europe and China. Environmental Man- W., 2019: Targeting climate change adaptation strat- agement, 66:858–872. Available at: https://doi. egies to small-scale private forest owners. Forest Pol- org/10.1007/s00267-020-01363-9 icy and Economics, 99:83–99. Available at: https:// Fazey, I., Gamarra, J. G., Fischer, J., Reed, M. S., doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.10.001 Stringer, L. C., Christie, M., 2010: Adaptation N e l s o n , H . W . , W i l l i a m s o n , T . B . , M a c a u l a y , C . , strategies for reducing vulnerability to future envi- Mahony, C., 2016: Assessing the potential for for- ronmental change. Frontiers in Ecology and the est management practitioner participation in cli- Environment, 8:414–422. Available at: https://doi. mate change adaptation. Forest Ecology and Man- org/10.1890/080215 agement, 360:388–399. Available at: https://doi. Fitzgerald, J., Lindner, M., 2013: Adapting to climate org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.09.038 change in European forests – results project of the Nichiforel, L., Keary, K., Deufc fi , P., Weiss, G., Thorsen, Adapting to climate change in European forests – B. J., Winkel, G., et al., 2018: How private are Europe’s results of the MOTIVE project. 110 p. private forests? A comparative property rights anal- Frank, E., Eakin, H., López-Carr, D, 2011: Social iden- ysis. Land Use Policy, 76:535–552. Available at: tity, perception and motivation in adaptation to cli- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.034 mate risk in the coffee sector of Chiapas, Mexico. Glo- O’Connor, R. E., Bard, R. J., Fisher, A., 1999: Risk bal Environmental Change, 21:66–76. Available at: Perceptions, General Environmental Beliefs, and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.11.001 W i l l i n g n e s s t o A d d r e s s C l i m a t e C h a n g e . R i s k Grothmann, T., Patt, A., 2005: Adaptive capacity and Analysis, 19:461–471. Available at: https://doi. human cognition: The process of individual adap- org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00421.x tation to climate change. Global Environmental Poortinga, W., Spence, A., Whitmarsh, L., Capstick, Change, 15:199–213. Available at: https://doi. S., Pidgeon, N. F., 2011: Uncertain climate: An org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.01.002 investigation into public scepticism about anthro- Hengst-Ehrhart, Y., 2019: Knowing is not enough: pogenic climate change. Global Environmental exploring the missing link between climate change Change, 21:1015–1024. Available at: https://doi. knowledge and action of German forest owners and org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.03.001 managers. Annals of Forest Science, 76:1–20. Avail- Pröbstl-Haider, U., Mostegl, N. M., Jandl, R., Formayer, able at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-019-0878-z H., Haider, W., Pukall, K. et al., 2017: Bereitschaft zur Hirsch, F., Schmithüsen, F. J., 2010: Private forest own- Klimaanpassung durch Kleinwaldbesitzer in Österre- ership in Europe. ETH Zurich, Vol. 26. Available at: ich. Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung 7/8:113–126 https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-006311424 Rogers, R. W., 1975: A Protection Motivation Theory of Husson, F., Le, S., Pagès, J., 2017: Exploratory Multivari- Fear Appeals and Attitude Change1. The Journal of ate Analysis by Example Using R, Second Edition. Psychology, 91, 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 Chapman and Hall/CRC. Available at: https://doi. 0223980.1975.9915803 org/10.1201/b21874 Rogers, R. W., 1983: Cognitive and physiological proc- Jandl, R., Spathelf, P., Bolte, A., Prescott, C. E., 2019: esses in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised Forest adaptation to climate change–is non-manage- theory of protection motivation. In Social psycho- ment an option? Annals of Forest Science, 7:48. Avail- physiology: A sourcebook, p. 153–176. able at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-019-0827-x Seidl, R., Schelhaas, M.-J., Lindner, M., Lexer, M. J., Kirilenko, A. P., Sedjo, R. A., 2007: Climate change 2009: Modelling bark beetle disturbances in a large impacts on forestry. Proceedings of the National scale forest scenario model to assess climate change Academy of Sciences of the United States of Amer- impacts and evaluate adaptive management strate- ica, 104:19697–19702. Available at: https://doi. gies. Regional Environmental Change, 9:101–119. org/10.1073/pnas.0701424104 Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-008- 0068-2 211 C. Coşofreţ, L. Bouriaud / Cent. Eur. For. J. 68 (2022) 203–212 Semenza, J. C., Hall, D. E., Wilson, D. J., Bontempo, B. Vinceti, B., Manica, M., Lauridsen, N., Verkerk, P. J., D., Sailor, D. J., George, L. A., 2008: Public percep- Lindner, M., Fady, B., 2020: Managing forest tion of climate change: voluntary mitigation and bar- genetic resources as a strategy to adapt forests to riers to behavior change. American journal of preven- climate change: perceptions of European forest tive medicine, 35:479–487. Available at: https://doi. owners and managers. European Journal of Forest org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.020 Research, 139:1107–1119. Available at: https://doi. Semenza, J. C., Ploubidis, G. B., George, L., 2011: Cli- org/10.1007/s10342-020-01311-6 mate change and climate variability: personal moti- Vulturius, G., André, K., Swartling, Å. G., Brown, C., vation for adaptation and mitigation. Environmental Rounsevell, M. D. A., Blanco, V., 2018: The rela- Health : A Global Access Science Source, 10:46. Avail- tive importance of subjective and structural factors able at: https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-10-46 for individual adaptation to climate change by forest Sousa-Silva, R., Ponette, Q., Verheyen, K., Van Herzele, owners in Sweden. Regional Environmental Change, A., Muys, B., 2016: Adaptation of forest management 18:511–520. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/ to climate change as perceived by forest owners and s10113-017-1218-1 managers in Belgium. Forest Ecosystems, 3:22. Weber, E. U., 2006: Experience-based and description- Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-016- based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global 0082-7 warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change, Sousa-Silva, R., Verbist, B., Lomba, Â., Valent, P., 77:103–120. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/ Suškevičs, M., Picard, O. et al., 2018: Adapting for- s10584-006-9060-3 est management to climate change in Europe: link- Yousefpour, R., Jacobsen, J. B., Meilby, H., Thorsen, B. ing perceptions to adaptive responses. Forest Policy J., 2014: Knowledge update in adaptive management and Economics, 90:22–30. Available at: https://doi. of forest resources under climate change: A Baye- org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.01.004 sian simulation approach. Annals of Forest Science, Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., Kalof, 71:301–312. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/ L., 1999: A value-belief-norm theory of support for s13595-013-0320-x social movements: The case of environmentalism. Zobeidi, T., Yaghoubi, J., Yazdanpanah, M., 2022: Human Ecology Review, 6:81–97. Available at: Farmers’ incremental adaptation to water scarcity: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24707060 An application of the model of private proactive adap- Thomas, J., Brunette, M., Leblois, A., 2022: The deter- tation to climate change (MPPACC). Agricultural minants of adapting forest management practices Water Management, 264 p. Available at: https://doi. to climate change: lessons from a survey of French org/10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107528 private forest owners. Forest Policy and Economics, Other sources 135, 102662. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. CPF, 2008: Strategic framework for forests and climate forpol.2021.102662 change. A proposal by the Collaborative Partnership Tomlinson, J., Rhiney, K., 2018: Assessing the role of on Forests for a coordinated forest-sector response farmer e fi ld schools in promoting pro-adaptive behav - to climate change. The Collaborative Partnership on iour towards climate change among Jamaican farm- Forests. ers. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Forestry Code, 2015: Law 133/2015 modified previous 8:86–98. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/ version of Law46/2008. s13412-017-0461-6 R Core Team, 2019: R: A language and environment for van Gameren, V., Zaccai, E., 2015: Private forest owners statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical facing climate change in Wallonia: Adaptive capac- Computing. https://www.r-project.org/. ity and practices. Environmental Science and Policy, 52:51–60. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. envsci.2015.05.004 Vacek, Z., Vacek, S., Slanař, J., Bílek, L., Bulušek, D., Štefančík, I. et al., 2019: Adaption of Norway spruce and European beech forests under climate change: from resistance to close-to-nature silviculture. Cen- tral European Forestry Journal, 65:129–144. Avail- able at: https://doi.org/10.2478/forj-2019-0013 212 C. Coşofreţ, L. Bouriaud / Cent. Eur. For. J. 68 (2022) 203–212 Appendix Table. 1. Questions fitting MPPACC model and analyzed using Multiple Correspondence Analysis. Questions abbreviation in italic are open questions and in bold are close–ended questions) Model of private proactive adaptation to climate change No. Crt. Eg.: Q1– question number and RetrLaw – abbrevation used in Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MPPACC) MCA Reliance on public adaptation and public forest policy 1 Q6–Mngmnt, Q10–Harvesting, Q11–expectation, Q13–Intentions (Table 2) 2 Risk experience appraisal (Table 3) Q7–Threat, Q8–guarding, Q9–Wood.Theft, Q12–p rbl.Bnft, Q15–For.Access Q1–RetrLaw, Q2–Area, Q3–Age, Q4–Composition, Q5–Dist, Q22–Ownertype, Q23–Studies, 3 Cognitive biases/heuristics (Table 4) Q24–ForestryStud, Q25–TrainingCC, Q26–InformationCC, Q27–WatchTV, Q28–InfAb- For, Q29–WhoMng Climate change risk appraisal (Perceived probability) 4 Q17–ClimateChange, Q19–CausesCC, Q21–InsectAttack (Table 5) Climate change risk appraisal (Perceived severity) 5 Q18–effectsCC, Q20–realthreatCC (Table 6) Other risks on forests/threats (Forest regime, Measures) 6 Q16–For.regime, Q14–Measures (Table 7) Table 2. The most contributing variables in Multiple Correspondence Analysis dimensions. MCA Dimension 1 MCA Dimension 2 Variables R2 p.value Variables R2 p.value Q17–ClimateChange 0.349192 1.22E–15 Q17–ClimateChange 0.307479 2.54776E-13 Q23–Studies 0.290377 5.07E–15 Q14–Measures 0.28201 2.52922E-11 Q16–For.regime 0.306051 5.41E–14 Q9–Wood.Theft 0.236561 3.68905E-11 Q20–RealThreatCC 0.284336 1.17E–13 Q8–Guarding 0.260572 6.9465E-11 Q18–EffectsCC 0.29401 1.33E–12 Q7–Threat 0.244015 9.48933E-11 Q6–Mngmnt 0.266881 1.45E–10 Q5–Dist 0.223799 9.40973E-10 ForestryStud 0.150218 7.03E–08 Prbl.Bnft 0.215449 2.38227E-09 CausesCC 0.179285 1.18E–07 EffectsCC 0.199481 5.82313E-08 InformationCC 0.192219 1.24E–07 CausesCC 0.168386 3.67703E-07 TrainingCC 0.144599 1.29E–07 Composition 0.15793 1.07824E-06 Measures 0.176371 2.13E–06 Harvesting 0.124275 7.42572E-06 Expectation 0.152274 7.00E–06 Ownertype 0.139506 2.40377E-05 Composition 0.138708 7.48E–06 Intentions 0.15449 0.000120057 Dist 0.129436 1.87E–05 InfAbFor 0.108888 0.000136113 Guarding 0.139818 2.33E–05 RealThreatCC 0.067769 0.001939069 InfAbFor 0.12306 3.48E–05 Expectation 0.083477 0.003891153 Threat 0.103878 2.19E–04 Mngmnt 0.090615 0.004970608 WhoMng 0.087791 2.81E–04 WatchTV 0.048664 0.01179569 WatchTV 0.062932 3.07E–03 TrainingCC 0.02789 0.02463685 Prbl.Bnft 0.071642 4.23E–03 Area 0.040514 2.52E–02 Intentions 0.079414 4.27E–02

Journal

Forestry Journal – de Gruyter

Published: Dec 1, 2022

Keywords: local climate change adaptation; private forest owner (PFO); perceptions; top-down decision

There are no references for this article.