IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/masfgc/v29y2024i6d10.1007_s11027-024-10152-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Balancing Risks and Benefits: Stakeholder Perspective on Managing Non-Native Tree Species in the European Alpine Space

Author

Listed:
  • Reneema Hazarika

    (University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU)
    Forest Biodiversity and Nature Conservation)

  • Katharina Lapin

    (Forest Biodiversity and Nature Conservation)

  • Anja Bindewald

    (Forest Research Institute of Baden-Württemberg (FVA))

  • Ana Sofia Vaz

    (CIBIOInBIO Laboratório AssociadoUniversidade Do Porto
    BIOPOLIS Program in Genomics, Biodiversity and Land Planning, CIBIO)

  • Aleksander Marinšek

    (Slovenian Forestry Institute)

  • Nicola Porta

    (IASMA Research and Innovation Centre, Edmund Mach Foundation, San Michele All Adige
    The EFI Project Centre On Mountain Forests (MOUNTFOR))

  • Patricia Detry
  • Frédéric Berger

    (Institut National De La Recherche Agronomique INRAE)

  • Darja Barič

    (Development Agency Sora d.o.o)

  • Anica Simčič

    (Slovenian Forestry Institute)

  • Harald Vacik

    (University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU))

Abstract

For centuries, non-native tree (NNT) species have been planted throughout Europe for ecosystem services including timber and urban greenery. Public interest in NNTs has recently increased due to their potential role in climate change adaptation as alternatives to vulnerable native forest tree species. However, opinions regarding the benefits and risks of European NNTs differ. Understanding stakeholder perceptions is crucial for guiding adaptive forest management, especially in sensitive ecosystems like the European Alpine Space. To assess awareness and perception, a structured questionnaire was administered to 456 respondents from six countries in the European Alpine Space. Most respondents were aware of the origin of native and NNT species in their area. NNTs and invasive-NNTs were primarily found in urban regions, with a perceived increase in their occurrence over the past 25 years. With some exceptions, such as Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco, the most common NNTs were generally perceived as potentially invasive. The perception of the invasiveness of NNTs correlated with their perceived risks and benefits on ecosystem services. The respondents who were unconcerned about invasiveness believed NNTs had a positive impact on provisioning services like timber, while those concerned about invasiveness perceived their negative effects on regulating cultural ecosystem services such as native biodiversity and landscape aesthetics. Overall, most respondents were conservative, opposing the promotion of NNTs, even in biodiversity-poor areas. Most stakeholders also believe that NNT regulations should prioritize their sustainable use and management rather than focusing solely on an invasive-centric narrative.

Suggested Citation

  • Reneema Hazarika & Katharina Lapin & Anja Bindewald & Ana Sofia Vaz & Aleksander Marinšek & Nicola Porta & Patricia Detry & Frédéric Berger & Darja Barič & Anica Simčič & Harald Vacik, 2024. "Balancing Risks and Benefits: Stakeholder Perspective on Managing Non-Native Tree Species in the European Alpine Space," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 1-22, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:masfgc:v:29:y:2024:i:6:d:10.1007_s11027-024-10152-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11027-024-10152-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11027-024-10152-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11027-024-10152-2?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. Shay-Wei Choon & Hway-Boon Ong & Siow-Hooi Tan, 2019. "Does risk perception limit the climate change mitigation behaviors?," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1891-1917, August.
    2. Liam F. Beiser-McGrath & Robert A. Huber, 2018. "Assessing the relative importance of psychological and demographic factors for predicting climate and environmental attitudes," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 335-347, August.
    3. Grilli, Gianluca & Jonkisz, Jaroslaw & Ciolli, Marco & Lesinski, Jerzy, 2016. "Mixed forests and ecosystem services: Investigating stakeholders' perceptions in a case study in the Polish Carpathians," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 11-17.
    4. Matthew J. Hornsey & Emily A. Harris & Paul G. Bain & Kelly S. Fielding, 2016. "Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(6), pages 622-626, June.
    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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Olve Krange & Bjørn P. Kaltenborn & Martin Hultman, 2021. "“Don’t confuse me with facts”—how right wing populism affects trust in agencies advocating anthropogenic climate change as a reality," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    3. Gabriele Prati & Iana Tzankova & Cinzia Albanesi & Elvira Cicognani, 2022. "Longitudinal Predictors of Perceived Climate Change Importance and Worry among Italian Youths: A Machine Learning Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-19, November.
    4. Sælen, Håkon Grøn & Aasen, Marianne, 2023. "Exploring public opposition and support across different climate policies: Poles apart?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    5. 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).
    6. Hallberg-Sramek, Isabella & Nordström, Eva-Maria & Priebe, Janina & Reimerson, Elsa & Mårald, Erland & Nordin, Annika, 2023. "Combining scientific and local knowledge improves evaluating future scenarios of forest ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    7. Nathaniel Geiger & Bryan McLaughlin & John Velez, 2021. "Not all boomers: temporal orientation explains inter- and intra-cultural variability in the link between age and climate engagement," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 1-20, May.
    8. Robin Bayes & James N. Druckman & Alauna C. Safarpour, 2022. "Studying Science Inequities: How to Use Surveys to Study Diverse Populations," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 700(1), pages 220-233, March.
    9. Shelley Boulianne & Mireille Lalancette & David Ilkiw, 2020. "“School Strike 4 Climate”: Social Media and the International Youth Protest on Climate Change," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 208-218.
    10. Upham, Dr Paul & Sovacool, Prof Benjamin & Ghosh, Dr Bipashyee, 2022. "Just transitions for industrial decarbonisation: A framework for innovation, participation, and justice," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    11. Sarah Ann Wheeler & Céline Nauges & Alec Zuo, 2021. "How stable are Australian farmers’ climate change risk perceptions? New evidence of the feedback loop between risk perceptions and behaviour," Post-Print hal-04670841, HAL.
    12. Walter Leal Filho & Mark Mifsud & Petra Molthan-Hill & Gustavo J. Nagy & Lucas Veiga Ávila & Amanda Lange Salvia, 2019. "Climate Change Scepticism at Universities: A Global Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-13, May.
    13. Julie Davydova & Adam R. Pearson & Matthew T. Ballew & Jonathon P. Schuldt, 2018. "Illuminating the link between perceived threat and control over climate change: the role of attributions for causation and mitigation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 45-59, May.
    14. Kaitlin T Raimi & Paul C Stern & Alexander Maki, 2017. "The Promise and Limitations of Using Analogies to Improve Decision-Relevant Understanding of Climate Change," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, January.
    15. Sebastian Levi & Christian Flachsland & Michael Jakob, 2020. "Political Economy Determinants of Carbon Pricing," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(2), pages 128-156, May.
    16. Agneman, Gustav & Henriks, Sofia & Bäck, Hanna & Renström, Emma, 2024. "On the nexus between material and ideological determinants of climate policy support," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    17. Phu Nguyen-Van & Anne Stenger & Tuyen Tiet, 2021. "Social incentive factors in interventions promoting sustainable behaviors: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-27, December.
    18. Lars Mewes & Leonie Tuitjer & Peter Dirksmeier, 2024. "Exploring the variances of climate change opinions in Germany at a fine-grained local scale," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-14, December.
    19. Sam Crawley & Hilde Coffé & Ralph Chapman, 2022. "Climate Belief and Issue Salience: Comparing Two Dimensions of Public Opinion on Climate Change in the EU," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 162(1), pages 307-325, July.
    20. Babak Nemat & Mohammad Razzaghi & Kim Bolton & Kamran Rousta, 2023. "Design-Based Approach to Support Sorting Behavior of Food Packaging," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-32, February.

    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:spr:masfgc:v:29:y:2024:i:6:d:10.1007_s11027-024-10152-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.