IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v41y2014icp1-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An uncertainty assessment framework for forest planning adaptation to climate change

Author

Listed:
  • Petr, Michal
  • Boerboom, Luc
  • Ray, Duncan
  • van der Veen, Anne

Abstract

Uncertainty in forest planning is a prevailing problem affecting decision-making processes, especially those relating to climate change adaptation. Limited knowledge about uncertainty has prompted this empirical investigation of forest planners' understanding of uncertainty related to its recognition, its management and risk perception. We used a comprehensive uncertainty framework to address and test these uncertainties, with data from an online survey, to identify the views of 33 forest planners through Britain. Responses were analysed using non-parametric tests. The results showed that planners have significantly different views on uncertainty among economic, social and climatic categories. Uncertainty in the climatic category was more acutely perceived than in the economic and social categories. Planners preferred to practice active uncertainty management, as the results suggest they feel more able to manage uncertainty in forest models and their outcomes. Forest planners also indicated diverse perceptions of salient risks of change over the next 30years. The results show they may take action only to pests, drought and wind risks posing a threat to forests even though they perceived these risks potentially to be highly regulated and controlled by forestry policies. The findings provide a better understanding of uncertainty as a source of inertia to climate change adaptation in forestry, identify new research objectives and support the development of forestry policies for climate change adaptation.

Suggested Citation

  • Petr, Michal & Boerboom, Luc & Ray, Duncan & van der Veen, Anne, 2014. "An uncertainty assessment framework for forest planning adaptation to climate change," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1-11.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:41:y:2014:i:c:p:1-11
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.12.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934113002475
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.12.002?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. Kangas, Annika S. & Kangas, Jyrki, 2004. "Probability, possibility and evidence: approaches to consider risk and uncertainty in forestry decision analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 169-188, March.
    2. Robert E. O'Connor & Richard J. Bard & Ann Fisher, 1999. "Risk Perceptions, General Environmental Beliefs, and Willingness to Address Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 461-471, June.
    3. Timothy McDaniels & Lawrence J. Axelrod & Paul Slovic, 1995. "Characterizing Perception of Ecological Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 575-588, October.
    4. Ruud Raaijmakers & Jörg Krywkow & Anne Veen, 2008. "Flood risk perceptions and spatial multi-criteria analysis: an exploratory research for hazard mitigation," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 46(3), pages 307-322, September.
    5. Holopainen, Markus & Mäkinen, Antti & Rasinmäki, Jussi & Hyytiäinen, Kari & Bayazidi, Saeed & Pietilä, Ilona, 2010. "Comparison of various sources of uncertainty in stand-level net present value estimates," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 377-386, June.
    6. Timothy L. McDaniels & Lawrence J. Axelrod & Nigel S. Cavanagh & Paul Slovic, 1997. "Perception of Ecological Risk to Water Environments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 341-352, June.
    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. Ray, Duncan & Petr, Michal & Mullett, Martin & Bathgate, Stephen & Marchi, Maurizio & Beauchamp, Kate, 2019. "A simulation-based approach to assess forest policy options under biotic and abiotic climate change impacts: A case study on Scotland's National Forest Estate," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 17-27.
    2. Davies, Susan & Bathgate, Stephen & Petr, Michal & Gale, Alan & Patenaude, Genevieve & Perks, Mike, 2020. "Drought risk to timber production – A risk versus return comparison of commercial conifer species in Scotland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    3. Erkkilä, Antti & Herdieckerhoff, Ida & Mustalahti, Irmeli & Tumaini, Ubaldus J. & Maro, Aristarik H., 2024. "Ambiguity and forest-based bioeconomy: The case of forest fires in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    4. Hörl, Jakob & Keller, Klaus & Yousefpour, Rasoul, 2020. "Reviewing the performance of adaptive forest management strategies with robustness analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    5. Sousa-Silva, Rita & Verbist, Bruno & Lomba, Ângela & Valent, Peter & Suškevičs, Monika & Picard, Olivier & Hoogstra-Klein, Marjanke A. & Cosofret, Vasile-Cosmin & Bouriaud, Laura & Ponette, Quentin & , 2018. "Adapting forest management to climate change in Europe: Linking perceptions to adaptive responses," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 22-30.

    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. Carla Rodriguez-Sanchez & Francisco J. Sarabia-Sanchez, 2020. "Does Water Context Matter in Water Conservation Decision Behaviour?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-16, April.
    2. Bonita L. McFarlane, 2005. "Public Perceptions of Risk to Forest Biodiversity," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 543-553, June.
    3. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    4. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    5. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay, 2007. "The Roles of Group Membership, Beliefs, and Norms in Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 1365-1380, October.
    6. Iris Alkaher & Nurit Carmi, 2019. "Is Population Growth an Environmental Problem? Teachers’ Perceptions and Attitudes towards Including It in Their Teaching," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-24, April.
    7. Maria Grazia Filomena & Bruno Pace & Massimo De Acetis & Antonio Aquino & Massimo Crescimbene & Marina Pace & Francesca Romana Alparone, 2023. "Play to Learn: A Game to Improve Seismic-Risk Perception," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-11, March.
    8. Seol-A Kwon & Hyun-Jung Yoo & Eugene Song, 2020. "Korean Consumers’ Recognition of Risks Depending on the Provision of Safety Information for Chemical Products," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-12, February.
    9. Agustin Robles Morua & Kathleen E. Halvorsen & Alex S. Mayer, 2011. "Waterborne Disease‐Related Risk Perceptions in the Sonora River Basin, Mexico," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 866-878, May.
    10. Bonita L. McFarlane & David O. T. Witson, 2008. "Perceptions of Ecological Risk Associated with Mountain Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) Infestations in Banff and Kootenay National Parks of Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 203-212, February.
    11. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & M. Granger Morgan & H. Keith Florig & Paul S. Fischbeck, 2004. "Ecological Risk Ranking: Development and Evaluation of a Method for Improving Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 363-378, April.
    12. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    13. Robin C. Van den Honert, 2016. "Improving Decision Making about Natural Disaster Mitigation Funding in Australia—A Framework," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-23, September.
    14. 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.
    15. Jaeyoung Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2021. "Can Political Trust Weaken the Relationship between Perceived Environmental Threats and Perceived Nuclear Threats? Evidence from South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-13, September.
    16. Veysel Yilmaz & Pınar Guleç & Erkan Ari, 2023. "Impact of climate change information of university students in Turkey on responsibility and environmental behavior through awareness and perceived risk," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(7), pages 7281-7297, July.
    17. Williamson, Tim & Hesseln, Hayley & Johnston, Mark, 2012. "Adaptive capacity deficits and adaptive capacity of economic systems in climate change vulnerability assessment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 160-166.
    18. Li, Sheng & Nadolnyak, Denis & Hartarska, Valentina, 2019. "Agricultural land conversion: Impacts of economic and natural risk factors in a coastal area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 380-390.
    19. Jiuchang Wei & Weiwei Zhu & Dora Marinova & Fei Wang, 2017. "Household adoption of smog protective behavior: a comparison between two Chinese cities," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 846-867, July.
    20. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Dante Di Matteo, 2020. "Climate Change and Social Perception: A Case Study in Southern Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-24, August.

    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:41:y:2014:i:c:p:1-11. 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.