Ambio

, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 430–441 | Cite as

The sensitivity of current and future forest managers to climate-induced changes in ecological processes

  • Rupert Seidl
  • Filip Aggestam
  • Werner Rammer
  • Kristina Blennow
  • Bernhard Wolfslehner
Report

Abstract

Climate vulnerability of managed forest ecosystems is not only determined by ecological processes but also influenced by the adaptive capacity of forest managers. To better understand adaptive behaviour, we conducted a questionnaire study among current and future forest managers (i.e. active managers and forestry students) in Austria. We found widespread belief in climate change (94.7 % of respondents), and no significant difference between current and future managers. Based on intended responses to climate-induced ecosystem changes, we distinguished four groups: highly sensitive managers (27.7 %), those mainly sensitive to changes in growth and regeneration processes (46.7 %), managers primarily sensitive to regeneration changes (11.2 %), and insensitive managers (14.4 %). Experiences and beliefs with regard to disturbance-related tree mortality were found to particularly influence a manager’s sensitivity to climate change. Our findings underline the importance of the social dimension of climate change adaptation, and suggest potentially strong adaptive feedbacks between ecosystems and their managers.

Keywords

Climate change adaptation Beliefs and experiences Forest management Growth change Disturbance change Regeneration change 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grant ACRP5 - MOCCA - KR12AC5K01104 under the Austrian Climate Research Program. R. Seidl acknowledges additional support from a European Commission’s Marie Curie Career Integration Grant (PCIG12-GA-2012-334104). We thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

13280_2015_737_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (240 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 240 kB)

References

  1. Adger, W.N., S. Dessai, M. Goulden, M. Hulme, I. Lorenzoni, D.R. Nelson, L.O. Naess, J. Wolf, et al. 2009. Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Climatic Change 93: 335–354. doi: 10.1007/s10584-008-9520-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anonymous. 2009. Österreichische Waldinventur 2007–2009. Vienna: Austrian Research Centre for Forests.Google Scholar
  3. Bello, D., K. Leung, L. Radebaugh, R.L. Tung, and A. van Witteloostuijn. 2009. From the Editors: Student samples in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies 40: 361–364. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2008.101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blennow, K., and J. Persson. 2009. Climate change: Motivation for taking measure to adapt. Global Environmental Change 19. Elsevier: 100–104. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.003.
  5. Blennow, K., J. Persson, M. Tome, and M. Hanewinkel. 2012. Climate change: Believing and seeing implies adapting. PLoS ONE 7: e50182. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boon, T.E., and H. Meilby. 2007. Describing management attitudes to guide forest policy implementation. Small-scale Forestry 6: 79–92. doi: 10.1007/s11842-007-9006-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breiman, L. 2001. Random Forests. Machine Learning 45: 5–32. doi: 10.1023/A:1010933404324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cutler, D.R., T.C. Edwards, K.H. Beard, A. Cutler, K.T. Hess, J. Gibson, and J.J. Lawler. 2007. Random forests for classification in ecology. Ecology 88: 2783–2792. doi: 10.1890/07-0539.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dayer, A.A., S.B. Allred, and R.C. Stedman. 2014. Comparative analysis and assessment of forest landowner typologies. Society and Natural Resources 27: 1200–1212. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2014.933931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Driscoll, D.A., and D.B. Lindenmayer. 2012. Framework to improve the application of theory in ecology and conservation. Ecological Monographs 82: 129–147. doi: 10.1890/11-0916.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elkin, C., A.G. Gutiérrez, S. Leuzinger, C. Manusch, C. Temperli, L. Rasche, and H. Bugmann. 2013. A 2 °C warmer world is not safe for ecosystem services in the European Alps. Global Change Biology 19: 1827–1840. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eriksson, L. 2014. Risk perception and responses among private forest owners in Sweden. Small-scale Forestry 13: 483–500. doi: 10.1007/s11842-014-9266-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. FAO. 2010. Global forest resources assessment 2010. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  14. Filatova, T., P.H. Verburg, D.C. Parker, and C.A. Stannard. 2013. Spatial agent-based models for socio-ecological systems: Challenges and prospects. Environmental Modelling and Software 45: 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.03.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fowler, F.J. 2009. Survey research methods, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Grothmann, T., and A. Patt. 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environmental Change 15: 199–213. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hanewinkel, M., D.A. Cullmann, M.-J. Schelhaas, G.-J. Nabuurs, and N.E. Zimmermann. 2013. Climate change may cause severe loss in the economic value of European forest land. Nature Climate Change 3: 203–207. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hogl, K., M. Pregernig, and G. Weiss. 2005. What is new about forest owners? A typology of private forest ownership in Austria. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy 4: 325–342. doi: 10.1007/s11842-005-0020-y.Google Scholar
  19. Holling, C.S., and G.K. Meffe. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology 10: 328–337. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10020328.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hujala, T., M. Kurttila, and H. Karpinnen. 2013. Customer segments among family forest owners: combining ownership objectives and decision-making styles. Small-scale Forestry 12: 335–351. doi: 10.1007/s11842-012-9215-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ingemarson, F., A. Lindhagen, and L. Eriksson. 2006. A typology of small-scale private forest owners in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 21: 249–259. doi: 10.1080/02827580600662256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Janssen, M.A., and E. Ostrom. 2006. Empirically based, agent-based models. Ecology And Society 11: 37. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art37/.
  23. Kaufman, L., and P.J. Rousseeuw. 1990. Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lawrence, A., and M. Marzano. 2014. Is the private forest sector adapting to climate change? A study of forest managers in north Wales. Annals of Forest Science 71: 291–300. doi: 10.1007/s13595-013-0326-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lidskog, R., and D. Sjödin. 2014. Why do forest owners fail to heed warnings? Conflicting risk evaluations made by the Swedish forest agency and forest owners. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 29: 275–282. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2014.910268.Google Scholar
  26. Lindner, M., M. Maroschek, S. Netherer, A. Kremer, A. Barbati, J. Garcia-Gonzalo, R. Seidl, S. Delzon, et al. 2010. Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management 259: 698–709. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liu, J., T. Dietz, S.R. Carpenter, C. Folke, M. Alberti, C.L. Redman, S.H. Schneider, E. Ostrom, et al. 2007. Coupled human and natural systems. Ambio 36: 639–649. doi: 10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[639:CHANS]2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MA. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press, Millenium Ecosystem Assessment.Google Scholar
  29. Moser, S.C., and J.A. Ekstrom. 2010. A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107: 22026–22031. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1007887107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Myers, T.A., E.W. Maibach, C. Roser-Renouf, K. Akerlof, and A.A. Leiserowitz. 2012. The relationship between personal experience and belief in the reality of global warming. Nature Climate Change 3: 343–347. doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Petr, M., L. Boerboom, D. Ray, and A. van der Veen. 2014. An uncertainty assessment framework for forest planning adaptation to climate change. Forest Policy and Economics 41: 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.12.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. MacKenzie, J.-Y. Lee, and N.P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pregernig, M. 2001. Values of forestry professionals and their implications for the applicability of policy instruments. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 16: 278–288. doi: 10.1080/02827580120186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Primmer, E., and H. Karppinen. 2010. Professional judgment in non-industrial private forestry: Forester attitudes and social norms influencing biodiversity conservation. Forest Policy and Economics 12: 136–146. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2009.09.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rammer, W., and R. Seidl. 2015. Coupling human and natural systems: Simulating adaptive management agents in dynamically changing forest landscapes. Global Environmental Change 35: 475–485. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rasche, L., L. Fahse, and H. Bugmann. 2013. Key factors affecting the future provision of tree-based forest ecosystem goods and services. Climatic Change 118: 579–593. doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0664-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reyer, C., P. Lasch-Born, F. Suckow, M. Gutsch, A. Murawski, and T. Pilz. 2014. Projections of regional changes in forest net primary productivity for different tree species in Europe driven by climate change and carbon dioxide. Annals of Forest Science 71: 211–225. doi: 10.1007/s13595-013-0306-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schou, E., B.J. Thorsen, and J.B. Jacobsen. 2015. Regeneration decisions in forestry under climate change related uncertainties and risks: Effects of three different aspects of uncertainty. Forest Policy and Economics 50: 11–19. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.09.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Seidl, R. 2014. The shape of ecosystem management to come: Anticipating risks and fostering resilience. BioScience 64: 1159–1169. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biu172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seidl, R., and M.J. Lexer. 2013. Forest management under climatic and social uncertainty: Trade-offs between reducing climate change impacts and fostering adaptive capacity. Journal of Environmental Management 114: 461–469. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.09.028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Seidl, R., W. Rammer, and M.J. Lexer. 2011a. Climate change vulnerability of sustainable forest management in the Eastern Alps. Climatic Change 106: 225–254. doi: 10.1007/s10584-010-9899-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Seidl, R., M.-J. Schelhaas, and M.J. Lexer. 2011b. Unraveling the drivers of intensifying forest disturbance regimes in Europe. Global Change Biology 17: 2842–2852. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02452.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Seidl, R., M.-J. Schelhaas, W. Rammer, and P.J. Verkerk. 2014. Increasing forest disturbances in Europe and their impact on carbon storage. Nature Climate Change 4: 806–810. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211: 453–458. doi: 10.1126/science.7455683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wagner, S., S. Nocentini, F. Huth, and M. Hoogstra-Klein. 2014. Forest management approaches for coping with the uncertainty of climate change: Trade-offs in service provisioning and adaptability. Ecology and Society 19: art.32. doi: 10.5751/ES-06213-190132.
  46. Weber, E.U. 2006. Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change 77: 103–120. doi: 10.1007/s10584-006-9060-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zivojinovic, I., and B. Wolfslehner. 2015. Perceptions of urban forestry stakeholders about climate change adaptation—A Q-method application in Serbia. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 14: 1079–1087. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2015.10.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rupert Seidl
    • 1
  • Filip Aggestam
    • 2
  • Werner Rammer
    • 1
  • Kristina Blennow
    • 3
  • Bernhard Wolfslehner
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Forest- and Soil Sciences, Institute of SilvicultureUniversity of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU)ViennaAustria
  2. 2.European Forest Institute Central-East European Regional Officec/o University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU)ViennaAustria
  3. 3.Department of Landscape Architecture, Planning and ManagementSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)AlnarpSweden

Personalised recommendations