IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v61y2015icp59-69.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring public perceptions of forest adaptation strategies in Western Canada: Implications for policy-makers

Author

Listed:
  • Hajjar, Reem
  • Kozak, Robert A.

Abstract

Various reforestation strategies that could potentially help forests adapt to a changing climate are currently being debated. We sought to gauge the public's acceptance levels of different reforestation strategies, and explore which factors seem to be associated with people's willingness to accept different forms of human and technological intervention in forest management. To do so, a public survey was administered in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada to assess acceptance of different forest adaptation strategies that could be employed to adapt to a changing climate, and explore variables identified from the literature as potentially affecting public decisions on biotechnology and assisted migration. A logistic regression was used to determine the degree to which variables identified in the literature are associated with levels of acceptance of different forest management strategies. What emerged was an explanatory model that can be used as a starting point to further engage the public in a discussion over appropriate and acceptable technologies and policies to help forests adapt to a changing climate.

Suggested Citation

  • Hajjar, Reem & Kozak, Robert A., 2015. "Exploring public perceptions of forest adaptation strategies in Western Canada: Implications for policy-makers," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 59-69.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:61:y:2015:i:c:p:59-69
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.08.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934115300344
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.08.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ian Savage, 1993. "Demographic Influences on Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 413-420, August.
    2. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    3. Josh Donlan, 2005. "Re-wilding North America," Nature, Nature, vol. 436(7053), pages 913-914, August.
    4. Thomas C. Beierle, 1999. "Using Social Goals To Evaluate Public Participation In Environmental Decisions," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 16(3‐4), pages 75-103, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Orduño Torres, Miguel Angel & Kallas, Zein & Ornelas Herrera, Selene Ivette, 2020. "Farmers’ environmental perceptions and preferences regarding climate change adaptation and mitigation actions; towards a sustainable agricultural system in México," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Peters, Michael & Fudge, Shane & High-Pippert, Angela & Carragher, Vincent & Hoffman, Steven M., 2018. "Community solar initiatives in the United States of America: Comparisons with – and lessons for – the UK and other European countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 355-364.
    3. Pelai, Ricardo & Hagerman, Shannon M. & Kozak, Robert, 2020. "Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    4. Chuang, Tsai-Jen & Yen, Tian-Ming, 2017. "Public views on the value of forests in relation to forestation projects—A case study in central Taiwan," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 173-179.
    5. Guillaume Peterson St-Laurent & Shannon Hagerman & Robert Kozak, 2018. "What risks matter? Public views about assisted migration and other climate-adaptive reforestation strategies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 573-587, December.
    6. Petit, Joshua D. & Needham, Mark D. & Howe, Glenn T., 2021. "Cognitive and demographic drivers of attitudes toward using genetic engineering to restore American chestnut trees," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    7. Ranacher, L. & Lähtinen, K. & Järvinen, E. & Toppinen, A., 2017. "Perceptions of the general public on forest sector responsibility: A survey related to ecosystem services and forest sector business impacts in four European countries," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 180-189.
    8. Osman M. Jama & Abdishakur W. Diriye & Abdulhakim M. Abdi, 2023. "Understanding young people’s perception toward forestation as a strategy to mitigate climate change in a post-conflict developing country," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 4787-4811, June.
    9. Pelai, Ricardo & Hagerman, Shannon M. & Kozak, Robert, 2021. "Whose expertise counts? Assisted migration and the politics of knowledge in British Columbia’s public forests," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    10. Orduño, Miguel Angel & Kallas, Zein & Ornelas, Selene Ivette, 2021. "Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Actions Based on Farmers' Environmental Preferences and Perceptions. Sustainable Agriculture, Mexico," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 314967, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Kulindwa, Yusuph J. & Ahlgren, Erik O., 2021. "Households and tree-planting for wood energy production – Do perceptions matter?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Edward Royzman & Corey Cusimano & Robert F. Leeman, 2017. "What lies beneath? Fear vs. disgust as affective predictors of absolutist opposition to genetically modified food and other new technologies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(5), pages 466-480, September.
    2. Kentaka Aruga, 2017. "Consumer responses to food produced near the Fukushima nuclear plant," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 19(4), pages 677-690, October.
    3. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    4. Cherng G. Ding & York Y. Woo & Her‐Jiun Sheu & Hui‐Chen Chien & Shu‐Fen Shen, 1996. "An Effective Statistical Approach for Comparative Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 411-419, June.
    5. Jesper Akesson & Sam Ashworth-Hayes & Robert Hahn & Robert Metcalfe & Itzhak Rasooly, 2022. "Fatalism, beliefs, and behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 147-190, April.
    6. Clare Bayley & Simon French, 2008. "Designing a Participatory Process for Stakeholder Involvement in a Societal Decision," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 195-210, May.
    7. Michelson, Hope & Fairbairn, Anna & Ellison, Brenna & Maertens, Annemie & Manyong, Victor, 2021. "Misperceived quality: Fertilizer in Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    8. Angela Bearth & Gulbanu Kaptan & Sabrina Heike Kessler, 2022. "Genome-edited versus genetically-modified tomatoes: an experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 1117-1131, September.
    9. Fan, Xiaoli & Muringai, Violet, 2018. "Effect of Information on Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Potatoes in Canada," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274073, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Beierle, Thomas & Cayford, Jerrell, 2001. "Evaluating Dispute Resolution as an Approach to Public Participation," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-40, Resources for the Future.
    11. Griewald, Yuliana & Clemens, Gerhard & Kamp, Johannes & Gladun, Elena & Hölzel, Norbert & von Dressler, Hubertus, 2017. "Developing land use scenarios for stakeholder participation in Russia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 264-276.
    12. Ashkan Pakseresht & Brandon R McFadden & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2017. "Consumer acceptance of food biotechnology based on policy context and upstream acceptance: evidence from an artefactual field experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(5), pages 757-780.
    13. Anna Alberini & Stefania Tonin & Margherita Turvani & Aline Chiabai, 2007. "Paying for permanence: Public preferences for contaminated site cleanup," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 155-178, April.
    14. Paul M. Kellstedt & Sammy Zahran & Arnold Vedlitz, 2008. "Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 113-126, February.
    15. Alexander H DeGolia & Elizabeth H T Hiroyasu & Sarah E Anderson, 2019. "Economic losses or environmental gains? Framing effects on public support for environmental management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, July.
    16. Melania Michetti & Stefano Ghinoi, 2020. "Climate-driven vulnerability and risk perception: implications for climate change adaptation in rural Mexico," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(3), pages 290-302, September.
    17. Beierle, Thomas C. & Cayford, Jerry, 2001. "Evaluating Dispute Resolution as an Approach to Public Participation," Discussion Papers 10899, Resources for the Future.
    18. Bernard, John C. & Gifford, Katie & Santora, Kristin & Bernard, Daria J., 2009. "Willingness to Pay for Foods with Varying Production Traits and Levels of Genetically Modified Content," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 40(2), pages 1-11, July.
    19. Mohamed M. Mostafa, 2016. "Post-materialism, Religiosity, Political Orientation, Locus of Control and Concern for Global Warming: A Multilevel Analysis Across 40 Nations," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 1273-1298, September.
    20. Elena Rosculete & Elena Bonciu & Catalin Aurelian Rosculete & Elena Teleanu, 2018. "Detection and Quantification of Genetically Modified Soybean in Some Food and Feed Products. A Case Study on Products Available on Romanian Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:61:y:2015:i:c:p:59-69. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.