IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v99y2019icp83-99.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Targeting climate change adaptation strategies to small-scale private forest owners

Author

Listed:
  • Mostegl, Nina M.
  • Pröbstl-Haider, Ulrike
  • Jandl, Robert
  • Haider, Wolfgang

Abstract

Climate change adaptation needs to receive extensive attention in the forestry sector. While measures are being applied in federal forests and large private properties, it remains unclear how small-scale private forest owners, with a property <20ha, perceive the possible influence of climate change and whether they will approach required activities. While in the past, the majority of private forest owners had ties to agriculture and cultivated farmland alongside their forests, recent studies revealed new trends and significant deviations from established norms and beliefs. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the motivations for forest ownership, current management practices, and perception of and adaptability to climate change, to discuss successful approaches for information campaigns, advisory services, and monetary incentives. The study applied a questionnaire with an embedded choice experiment, which obtained a thorough understanding of the salient factors influencing decision-making by surveying 919 forest owners across Austria. Results show that small-scale private forest owners are not homogenous. Three distinct segments were identified (utility oriented, recreation oriented, and tradition conscious forest owners) which reacted differently to provided management options and incentives. However, even under a worst-case scenario setting, 84% of forest owners would select some sort of management over no procedure, indicating that forest management is not generally rejected. Information campaigns should rather focus on soft management leading to attractive, stable and highly diverse forest stands resilient to climate change than on cost efficiency and financial benefits. Therefore, advisory services need to convey, that all forest measures are performed with special care and under consideration of the remaining forest and that each stand is treated individually with adequate equipment. Increasing monetary incentives, such as funding, barely influences forest owners' decision-making and are therefore deemed unfeasible and unable to motivate the owners to undertake climate change adaptation measures. The study shows that a segmentation based on management behavior and preferences rather than on predefined characteristics has the potential to define a new state of the art. Overall, climate change adaptation through tailored forest management is highly supported by the presented findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Mostegl, Nina M. & Pröbstl-Haider, Ulrike & Jandl, Robert & Haider, Wolfgang, 2019. "Targeting climate change adaptation strategies to small-scale private forest owners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 83-99.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:99:y:2019:i:c:p:83-99
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.10.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934117301399
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.10.001?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. Bennett, Drew E. & Gosnell, Hannah, 2015. "Integrating multiple perspectives on payments for ecosystem services through a social–ecological systems framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 172-181.
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. Novais, Ana & Canadas, Maria João, 2010. "Understanding the management logic of private forest owners: A new approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 173-180, March.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    5. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    6. Kvarda, Mag. Eva, 2004. "`Non-agricultural forest owners' in Austria - a new type of forest ownership," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(5), pages 459-467, August.
    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. Juutinen, Artti & Kurttila, Mikko & Pohjanmies, Tähti & Tolvanen, Anne & Kuhlmey, Katharina & Skudnik, Mitja & Triplat, Matevž & Westin, Kerstin & Mäkipää, Raisa, 2021. "Forest owners' preferences for contract-based management to enhance environmental values versus timber production," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    2. Wilkes-Allemann, Jerylee & Deuffic, Philippe & Jandl, Robert & Westin, Kerstin & Lieberherr, Eva & Foldal, Cecilie & Lidestav, Gun & Weiss, Gerhard & Zabel, Astrid & Živojinović, Ivana & Pecurul-Botin, 2021. "Communication campaigns to engage (non-traditional) forest owners: A European perspective," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    3. Haeler, Elena & Bolte, Andreas & Buchacher, Rafael & Hänninen, Harri & Jandl, Robert & Juutinen, Artti & Kuhlmey, Katharina & Kurttila, Mikko & Lidestav, Gun & Mäkipää, Raisa & Rosenkranz, Lydia & Tri, 2023. "Forest subsidy distribution in five European countries," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    4. Joa, Bettina & Schraml, Ulrich, 2020. "Conservation practiced by private forest owners in Southwest Germany – The role of values, perceptions and local forest knowledge," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    5. Juutinen, Artti & Tolvanen, Anne & Koskela, Terhi, 2020. "Forest owners' future intentions for forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    6. Jens Abildtrup & Anne Stenger, 2022. "Report on valuation methods," Working Papers hal-04068881, HAL.
    7. Grace B. Villamor & Steve J. Wakelin & Andrew Dunningham & Peter W. Clinton, 2023. "Climate change adaptation behaviour of forest growers in New Zealand: an application of protection motivation theory," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(2), pages 1-25, February.
    8. Pröbstl-Haider, U. & Mostegl, N.M. & Haider, W., 2020. "Small-scale private forest ownership: Understanding female and male forest owners' climate change adaptation behaviour," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    9. Eriksson, Louise & Sandström, Camilla, 2022. "Is voluntarism an effective and legitimate way of governing climate adaptation? A study of private forest owners in Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    10. Juutinen, Artti & Haeler, Elena & Jandl, Robert & Kuhlmey, Katharina & Kurttila, Mikko & Mäkipää, Raisa & Pohjanmies, Tähti & Rosenkranz, Lydia & Skudnik, Mitja & Triplat, Matevž & Tolvanen, Anne & Vi, 2022. "Common preferences of European small-scale forest owners towards contract-based management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(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. Pröbstl-Haider, U. & Mostegl, N.M. & Haider, W., 2020. "Small-scale private forest ownership: Understanding female and male forest owners' climate change adaptation behaviour," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    2. Ficko, Andrej & Boncina, Andrej, 2013. "Probabilistic typology of management decision making in private forest properties," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 34-43.
    3. Ficko, Andrej & Lidestav, Gun & Ní Dhubháin, Áine & Karppinen, Heimo & Zivojinovic, Ivana & Westin, Kerstin, 2019. "European private forest owner typologies: A review of methods and use," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 21-31.
    4. Choi, Andy S., 2011. "Implicit prices for longer temporary exhibitions in a heritage site and a test of preference heterogeneity: A segmentation-based approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 511-519.
    5. Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Amy W. Ando, 2014. "Valuing Grassland Restoration: Proximity to Substitutes and Trade-offs among Conservation Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 237-259.
    6. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    7. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    8. Ridier, Aude & Roussy, Caroline & Chaib, Karim, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 102(1), April.
    9. Chorus, Caspar & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Sobhani, Anae & Szép, Teodóra, 2021. "Obfuscation maximization-based decision-making: Theory, methodology and first empirical evidence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 28-44.
    10. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    11. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    12. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    13. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    14. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    15. Robert Turner, 2013. "Using contingent choice surveys to inform national park management," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(2), pages 120-138, June.
    16. Meles, Tensay Hadush & Ryan, Lisa & Mukherjee, Sanghamitra C., 2022. "Heterogeneity in preferences for renewable home heating systems among Irish households," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    17. Kim, Seheon & Rasouli, Soora, 2022. "The influence of latent lifestyle on acceptance of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS): A hierarchical latent variable and latent class approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 304-319.
    18. Carnegie, Rachel & Wang, Holly & Widmar, Nicole & Ortega, David, 2014. "Consumer Preferences for Quality and Safety Attributes of Duck in Restaurant Entrees: Is China A Viable Market for The U.S. Duck Industry?," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170717, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    20. Gallardo, Rosa Karina & Olanie, Aaron, 2012. "The Use of Wireless Capability at Farmers Markets: Results from a Choice Experiment Study," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124891, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:99:y:2019:i:c:p:83-99. 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.