IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i3p364-d762457.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving the Representation of Climate Change Adaptation Behaviour in New Zealand’s Forest Growing Sector

Author

Listed:
  • Grace B. Villamor

    (Scion (New Zealand Forest Research Institute, Ltd.) Titokorangi Drive, Private Bag 3020, Rotorua 3046, New Zealand
    Center for Development Research, University of Bonn, 3 Genscherallee, 53113 Bonn, Germany)

  • Andrew Dunningham

    (Scion (New Zealand Forest Research Institute, Ltd.) Titokorangi Drive, Private Bag 3020, Rotorua 3046, New Zealand)

  • Philip Stahlmann-Brown

    (Manaaki Whenua—Landcare Research, 17 Whitmore Street, Wellington 6011, New Zealand)

  • Peter W. Clinton

    (Scion (New Zealand Forest Research Institute, Ltd.) Titokorangi Drive, Private Bag 3020, Rotorua 3046, New Zealand)

Abstract

To provide the forest industry with a better understanding of alternatives to simulate future adaptation pathways under evolving climatic and socio-economic uncertainty, we review the literature on how adaptation decisions are modelled in the context of plantation forests. This review leads to the conclusion that the representation of adaptation behaviour and decision-making remain very limited in most of the agent-based models in the forestry sector. Moreover, theoretical frameworks used to understand the adaptation behaviour of forest owners are also lacking. In this paper, we propose the application of protection motivation theory (PMT) as a framework to understand the motivation of forest owners to reduce the negative impacts of climate change on their forest plantations. Furthermore, the use of PMT allows factors affecting the maladaptive behaviour of forest owners to be examined. A survey of New Zealand foresters showed that less than 10% of smallholder forest owners adopted adaptation strategies. This result highlights the importance of addressing the research question “what motivates forest owners to take risk reduction measures?” Exploring this question is crucial to the future success of the New Zealand forestry sector and we suggest that it can be addressed by using PMT. This paper proposes a conceptual framework for an agent-based model as an alternative to simulating adaptation pathways for forest plantations in New Zealand.

Suggested Citation

  • Grace B. Villamor & Andrew Dunningham & Philip Stahlmann-Brown & Peter W. Clinton, 2022. "Improving the Representation of Climate Change Adaptation Behaviour in New Zealand’s Forest Growing Sector," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:3:p:364-:d:762457
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/3/364/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/3/364/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karppinen, Heimo & Berghäll, Sami, 2015. "Forest owners' stand improvement decisions: Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 275-284.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    3. Augusiak, Jacqueline & Van den Brink, Paul J. & Grimm, Volker, 2014. "Merging validation and evaluation of ecological models to ‘evaludation’: A review of terminology and a practical approach," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 280(C), pages 117-128.
    4. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    5. Ernst Gebetsroither & Alexander Kaufmann & Ute Gigler & Andreas Resetarits, 2006. "Agent-Based Modelling of Self-Organisation Processes to Support Adaptive Forest Management," Contributions to Economics, in: Francesco C. Billari & Thomas Fent & Alexia Prskawetz & Jürgen Scheffran (ed.), Agent-Based Computational Modelling, pages 153-172, Springer.
    6. Gawith, David & Hodge, Ian & Morgan, Fraser & Daigneault, Adam, 2020. "Climate change costs more than we think because people adapt less than we assume," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    7. Amadou, Mahamadou L. & Villamor, Grace B. & Kyei-Baffour, Nicholas, 2018. "Simulating agricultural land-use adaptation decisions to climate change: An empirical agent-based modelling in northern Ghana," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 196-209.
    8. Erin Bohensky, 2014. "Learning Dilemmas in a Social-Ecological System: An Agent-Based Modeling Exploration," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 17(1), pages 1-2.
    9. An, Li, 2012. "Modeling human decisions in coupled human and natural systems: Review of agent-based models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 229(C), pages 25-36.
    10. Quang Nguyen & Colin Camerer & Tomomi Tanaka, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences Linking Experimental and Household Data from Vietnam," Post-Print halshs-00547090, HAL.
    11. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Atesmachew Hailegiorgis & Andrew Crooks & Claudio Cioffi-Revilla, 2018. "An Agent-Based Model of Rural Households’ Adaptation to Climate Change," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 21(4), pages 1-4.
    13. Laakkonen, Anu & Zimmerer, Rebekah & Kähkönen, Tanja & Hujala, Teppo & Takala, Tuomo & Tikkanen, Jukka, 2018. "Forest owners' attitudes toward pro-climate and climate-responsive forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-10.
    14. Tomomi Tanaka & Colin F. Camerer & Quang Nguyen, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 557-571, March.
    15. Schlüter, Maja & Baeza, Andres & Dressler, Gunnar & Frank, Karin & Groeneveld, Jürgen & Jager, Wander & Janssen, Marco A. & McAllister, Ryan R.J. & Müller, Birgit & Orach, Kirill & Schwarz, Nina & Wij, 2017. "A framework for mapping and comparing behavioural theories in models of social-ecological systems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 21-35.
    16. Kostadinov, Fabian & Holm, Stefan & Steubing, Bernhard & Thees, Oliver & Lemm, Renato, 2014. "Simulation of a Swiss wood fuel and roundwood market: An explorative study in agent-based modeling," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 105-118.
    17. Karppinen, Heimo, 2005. "Forest owners' choice of reforestation method: an application of the theory of planned behavior," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 393-409, March.
    18. Ingold, Karin & Zimmermann, Willi, 2011. "How and why forest managers adapt to socio-economic changes: A case study analysis in Swiss forest enterprises," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 97-103.
    19. Scheller, Fabian & Johanning, Simon & Bruckner, Thomas, 2019. "A review of designing empirically grounded agent-based models of innovation diffusion: Development process, conceptual foundation and research agenda," Contributions of the Institute for Infrastructure and Resources Management 01/2019, University of Leipzig, Institute for Infrastructure and Resources Management.
    20. Calum Brown & Peter Alexander & Sascha Holzhauer & Mark D. A. Rounsevell, 2017. "Behavioral models of climate change adaptation and mitigation in land‐based sectors," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), March.
    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. 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.
    2. Weilung Huang & Si Chen & Xiaomei Zhang & Xuemeng Zhao, 2022. "The Sustainable Development of Forest Food," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-17, October.

    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. Shin, Soye & Magnan, Nicholas & Mullally, Conner & Janzen, Sarah, 2022. "Demand for Weather Index Insurance among Smallholder Farmers under Prospect Theory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 82-104.
    2. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "Experience of losses and aversion to uncertainty - experimental evidence from farmers in Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    3. Bocqueho, Geraldine & Jacquet, Florence & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Expected Utility or Prospect Theory Maximizers? Results from a Structural Model based on Field-experiment Data," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114257, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver & Wiercinski, Ben, 2017. "The Relationship between Farmers' Shock Experiences and their Uncertainty Preferences - Experimental Evidence from Mexico," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 256212, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    5. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," NBER Working Papers 25072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Marc A. Ragin & Justin R. Sydnor, 2020. "Linking subjective and incentivized risk attitudes: The importance of losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 187-206, April.
    7. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.
    8. Bougherara, Douadia & Piet, Laurent, 2014. "The Impact of Farmers’ Risk Preferences on the Design of an Individual Yield Crop Insurance," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 183082, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Géraldine Bocqueho & Marc Deschamps & Jenny Helstroffer & Julien Jacob & Majlinda Joxhe & Ofce Observatoire Français Des Conjonctures Économiques, 2018. "The risk and refugee migration," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03607866, HAL.
    10. Lucks, Konstantin E. & Lührmann, Melanie & Winter, Joachim, 2020. "Assortative matching and social interaction: A field experiment on adolescents’ risky choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 313-340.
    11. Stephen G Dimmock & Roy Kouwenberg & Olivia S Mitchell & Kim Peijnenburg, 2021. "Household Portfolio Underdiversification and Probability Weighting: Evidence from the Field," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 34(9), pages 4524-4563.
    12. Visser, Martine & Jumare, Hafsah & Brick, Kerri, 2020. "Risk preferences and poverty traps in the uptake of credit and insurance amongst small-scale farmers in South Africa," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 826-836.
    13. Campos-Vazquez, Raymundo M. & Cuilty, Emilio, 2014. "The role of emotions on risk aversion: A Prospect Theory experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 1-9.
    14. Petraud, Jean & Boucher, Stephen & Carter, Michael, 2015. "Competing theories of risk preferences and the demand for crop insurance: Experimental evidence from Peru," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211383, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Arjan Verschoor & Ben D’Exelle, 2022. "Probability weighting for losses and for gains among smallholder farmers in Uganda," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(1), pages 223-258, February.
    16. Ryan O. Murphy & Robert H. W. ten Brincke, 2018. "Hierarchical Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimation for Cumulative Prospect Theory: Improving the Reliability of Individual Risk Parameter Estimates," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 308-328, January.
    17. Robert Huber & Hang Xiong & Kevin Keller & Robert Finger, 2022. "Bridging behavioural factors and standard bio‐economic modelling in an agent‐based modelling framework," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 35-63, February.
    18. Julia Ihli, Hanna & Chiputwa, Brian & Winter, Etti & Gassner, Anja, 2022. "Risk and time preferences for participating in forest landscape restoration: The case of coffee farmers in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    19. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    20. Kpegli, Yao Thibaut & Corgnet, Brice & Zylbersztejn, Adam, 2023. "All at once! A comprehensive and tractable semi-parametric method to elicit prospect theory components," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).

    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:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:3:p:364-:d:762457. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.