Advertisement

Does Climate Change Communication Matter for Individual Engagement with Adaptation? Insights from Forest Owners in Sweden

  • Gregor VulturiusEmail author
  • Karin André
  • Åsa Gerger Swartling
  • Calum Brown
  • Mark Rounsevell
Article

Abstract

Natural resource managers urgently need to adapt to climate change, and extension services are increasingly using targeted communication campaigns to promote individual engagement with adaptation. This study compares two groups of Swedish forest owners: 1493 who participated in two climate communication projects by the Swedish Forest Agency, and 909 who were randomly sampled. The study finds statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of climate change awareness and concern, belief in the urgency to act and intentions to take adaptive measures. Results suggest that the primary effect of the climate chance communication seems to have been on forest owners’ subjective risk perceptions and beliefs in their knowledge and ability, which make it more likely that individuals will take adaptive action in the future. The study also finds that experience with extreme events affects people’s intentions to take adaptive measures independently from their beliefs that these extremes were caused by climate change. Furthermore, findings also highlight the need for communication research and practice to recognise the impeding role social norms and economic rationales can play for individual adaptation. Future research should make use of longitudinal and qualitative research to assess the effect of deliberation- and solution-orientated communication on people’s intentions and actions to adapt to climate change.

Keywords

Climate change communication Climate change adaptation Risk perception Forest management Extreme events Extension services 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all forest owners for their participation. Grateful thanks also to the reviewers for their helpful comments.

Funding

This research was funded by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (Mistra) and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida). The study contributed to the Mistra-SWECIA project and the SEI Initiative on Climate Services.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The authors declare that all data were collected in compliance with Swedish data protection legislation.

References

  1. Adebajo S, Eluwa G, Njab J et al. (2015) Evaluating the effect of HIV prevention strategies on uptake of HIV counselling and testing among male most-at-risk-populations in Nigeria; a cross-sectional analysis. Sexually Transmitted Infect 91:555–560.  https://doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2014-051659 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adger WN, Dessai S, Goulden M et al. (2009) Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Climatic Change 93:335–354.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9520-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akerlof K, Maibach EW, Fitzgerald D et al. (2013) Do people “personally experience” global warming, and if so how, and does it matter? Glob Environ Change 23:81–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersson E, Keskitalo ECH (2018) Adaptation to climate change? Why business-as-usual remains the logical choice in Swedish forestry. Glob Environ Change 48:76–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.11.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersson E, Keskitalo ECH, Bergstén S (2018) In the eye of the storm: adaptation logics of forest owners in management and planning in Swedish areas. Scand J For Res 33:800–808.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2018.1494305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andersson M (2012) Assessing non-industrial private forest owners’ attitudes to risk: do owner and property characteristics matter? J For Econ 18:3–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2011.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Appelstrand M (2012) Developments in Swedish forest policy and administration – from a “policy of restriction” toward a “policy of cooperation. Scand J For Res 27:186–199.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2011.635069 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arvidsson A (2014) Kompetensutvecklingsprojekt Skogsbruk i ett förändrat klimat. Skogsstyrelsen [Swedish Forest Agency], Jönköping, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  9. Ballantyne AG (2016) Climate change communication: what can we learn from communication theory?: climate change communication. Wiley Interdiscip Rev 7:329–344.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.392 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bandura A (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Rev 84:191–215.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bissonnette J-F, Dupras J, Doyon F et al. (2017) Perceptions of small private forest owner’s vulnerability and adaptive capacity to environmental disturbances and climate change: views from a heterogeneous population in Southern Quebec, Canada. Small-scale. Small-Scale For 16:367–393.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-016-9361-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blanco V, Brown C, Rounsevell M (2015) Characterising forest owners through their objectives, attributes and management strategies. Eur J For Res 134:1027–1041.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-015-0907-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blennow K, Andersson M, Sallnäs O, Olofsson E (2010) Climate change and the probability of wind damage in two Swedish forests. For Ecol Manag 259:818–830.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.07.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Blennow K, Eriksson H (2006) Riskhantering i skogsbruket. Skogsstyrelsen [Swedish Forest Agency], Jönköping, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  15. Blennow K, Persson J, Tomé M, Hanewinkel M (2012) Climate change: believing and seeing implies adapting. PLoS ONE 7:e50182.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050182 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bohensky EL, Kirono DGC, Butler JRA et al. (2016) Climate knowledge cultures: stakeholder perspectives on change and adaptation in Nusa Tenggara Barat, Indonesia. Clim Risk Manag 12:17–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2015.11.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bostrom A, Böhm G, O’Connor RE (2013) Targeting and tailoring climate change communications. Wiley Interdiscip Rev 4:447–455.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.234 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bowers AW, Monroe MC, Adams DC (2016) Climate change communication insights from cooperative extension professionals in the US Southern states: finding common ground. Environ Commun 10:656–670.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1176947 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bradley GL, Reser JP (2017) Adaptation processes in the context of climate change: a social and environmental psychology perspective. J Bioecon 19:29–51.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-016-9231-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Brügger A, Dessai S, Devine-Wright P et al. (2015) Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change. Nat Clim Change 5:1031–1037.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2760 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bryman A (2012) Social research methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  22. Carr ER, Onzere SN (2018) Really effective (for 15% of the men): lessons in understanding and addressing user needs in climate services from Mali. Clim Risk Manag 22:82–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cohen J (1992) A power primer. Psychological Bull 112:155–159.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cox R (2007) Nature’s “crisis disciplines”: does environmental communication have an ethical duty? Environ Commun 1:5–20.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17524030701333948 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Craig RT (1999) Communication theory as a field. Commun Theory 9:119–161.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00166.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. CRED (2009) The psychology of climate change communication: a guide for scientists, journalists, educators, political aides, and the interested public. Center for Research on Environmental Decisions, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  27. Davis J (1985) The logic of causal order. SAGE Publications, Inc,Thousand Oaks, CA, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Demski C, Capstick S, Pidgeon N et al. (2017) Experience of extreme weather affects climate change mitigation and adaptation responses. Clim Change 140:149–164.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1837-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dessai S, Sims C (2010) Public perception of drought and climate change in southeast England. Environ Hazards 9:340–357.  https://doi.org/10.3763/ehaz.2010.0037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Donaldson SI (2001) Mediator and moderator analysis in program development. In: Handbook of program development for health behavior research and practice. SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, p 470–496Google Scholar
  31. Eisenack K, Moser SC, Hoffmann E et al. (2014) Explaining and overcoming barriers to climate change adaptation. Nat Clim Change 4:867–872.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2350 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Eriksson H (2007) Svenskt skogsbruk möter klimatförändringar [Swedish forestry meets climate chage]. Swedish Forest Agency, Jonköping, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  33. Eriksson L (2014) Risk perception and responses among private forest owners in Sweden. Small-Scale For 13:483–500.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-014-9266-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Felton A, Gustafsson L, Roberge J-M et al. (2016) How climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies can threaten or enhance the biodiversity of production forests: insights from Sweden. Biol Conserv 194:11–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.11.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Field AP, Miles J, Field Z (2012) Discovering statistics using R. SAGE, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Flagg JA, Kirchhoff CJ (2018) Context matters: context-related drivers of and barriers to climate information use. Clim Risk Manag 20:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2018.01.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Goodwin J, Dahlstrom MF (2014) Communication strategies for earning trust in climate change debates: earning trust in climate change debates. Wiley Interdiscip Rev 5:151–160.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gordon R, Harris F, Marie Mackintosh A, Moodie C (2011) Assessing the cumulative impact of alcohol marketing on young people’s drinking: cross-sectional data findings. Addict Res Theory 19:66–75.  https://doi.org/10.3109/16066351003597142 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Grothmann T, Patt A (2005) Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change. Glob Environ Change 15:199–213.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Grotta AT, Creighton JH, Schnepf C, Kantor S (2013) Family forest owners and climate change: understanding, attitudes, and educational needs. J For 111:87–93.  https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.12-052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hayes AAF, Preacher KJ, Myers TA (2010) Mediation and estimation of indirect effects in political communication research. In: Bucy EP, Holbert LR (eds) The sourcebook for political communication research. Routledge, New York, NY, p 434–465Google Scholar
  42. Heinrichs H (2010) Climate change and society – communicating adaptation. In: Gross M, Heinrichs H (eds) Environmental sociology. Springer, Netherlands, Dordrecht, p 323–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Heltorp KMA, Kangas A, Hoen HF (2018) Do forest decision-makers in Southeastern Norway adapt forest management to climate change? Scand J For Res 33:278–290.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2017.1362463 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Howell RA (2014) Investigating the long-term impacts of climate change communications on individuals’ attitudes and behavior. Environ Behav 46:70–101.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512452428 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. IPCC (2019) Summary for policymakers. In: IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse gas fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. IPCC. (In press)Google Scholar
  46. Johnson BB (2012) Climate change communication: a provocative inquiry into motives, meanings, and means: perspective. Risk Anal 32:973–991.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01731.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jönsson AM, Bärring L (2011) Future climate impact on spruce bark beetle life cycle in relation to uncertainties in regional climate model data ensembles. Tellus A 63:158–173.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2010.00479.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jönsson AM, Lagergren F, Smith B (2013) Forest management facing climate change – an ecosystem model analysis of adaptation strategies. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 20:201–220.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-013-9487-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Keskitalo ECH (2009) Governance in vulnerability assessment: the role of globalising decision-making networks in determining local vulnerability and adaptive capacity. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 14:185–201.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-008-9159-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kindstrand C, Norman J, Boman M, Mattsson L (2008) Attitudes towards various forest functions: a comparison between private forest owners and forest officers. Scand J For Res 23:133–136.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02827580801944842 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Krantz S, Monroe M, Bartels W-L (2013) Creating extension programs for change: forest landowners and climate change communication. Appl Environ Educ Commun 12:272–279.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2013.876305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kreibich H, Seifert I, Thieken AH et al. (2011) Recent changes in flood preparedness of private households and businesses in Germany. Regional Environ Change 11:59–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-010-0119-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Leiserowitz AA, Maibach EW, Roser-Renouf C et al. (2013) Climategate, public opinion, and the loss of trust. Am Behav Sci 57:818–837.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764212458272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lidskog R, Löfmarck E (2015) Managing uncertainty: forest professionals’ claim and epistemic authority in the face of societal and climate change. Risk Manag 17:145–164.  https://doi.org/10.1057/rm.2015.10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lidskog R, Sjödin D (2014) Why do forest owners fail to heed warnings? Conflicting risk evaluations made by the Swedish forest agency and forest owners. Scand J For Res 29:275–282.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2014.910268 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lindner M, Fitzgerald JB, Zimmermann NE et al. (2014) Climate change and European forests: what do we know, what are the uncertainties, and what are the implications for forest management? J Environ Manag 146:69–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lorenzoni I, Nicholson-Cole S, Whitmarsh L (2007) Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Glob Environ Change 17:445–459.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Maddux JE, Rogers RW (1983) Protection motivation and self-efficacy: a revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Exp Soc Psychol 19:469–479.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(83)90023-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Milfont TL (2012) the interplay between knowledge, perceived efficacy, and concern about global warming and climate change: a one-year longitudinal study: knowledge, perceived efficacy, and concern about global warming and climate change over time. Risk Anal 32:1003–1020.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01800.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Morris HLC, Megalos MA, Hubbard WG, Boby LA (2016) Climate change attitudes of southern forestry professionals: outreach implications. J For 114:532–540.  https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.14-148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Moser SC (2014) Communicating adaptation to climate change: the art and science of public engagement when climate change comes home: Communicating adaptation to climate change. Wiley Interdiscip Rev 5:337–358.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.276 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Moser SC (2016) Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: what more is there to say? Wiley Interdiscip Rev 7:345–369.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Moser SC, Ekstrom JA (2010) A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. PNAS 107:22026–22031.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1007887107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mostegl NM, Pröbstl-Haider U, Jandl R, Haider W (2019) Targeting climate change adaptation strategies to small-scale private forest owners. For Policy Econ 99:83–99.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Myers TA, Maibach EW, Roser-Renouf C et al. (2013) The relationship between personal experience and belief in the reality of global warming. Nat Clim Change 3:343–347.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1754 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Nerlich B, Koteyko N, Brown B (2010) Theory and language of climate change communication. Wiley Interdiscip Rev 1:97–110.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Niles MT, Brown M, Dynes R (2016) Farmer’s intended and actual adoption of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. Clim Change 135:277–295.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1558-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Nordlund A, Westin K (2010) Forest values and forest management attitudes among private forest owners in Sweden. Forests 2:30–50.  https://doi.org/10.3390/f2010030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Nordström M (2014) Kunskap ger effekt i skogen. Skogsstyrelsens kompetensutvecklingsprojekt inom EU:s landsbygdprogram [Knowledge produces results in the forest: the Forestry Agency’s capacity-building project within the EU’s rural development programme]. Swedish Forestry AgencyGoogle Scholar
  70. Norgaard KM (2011) Living in denial: climate change, emotions, and everyday life. MIT Press, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. NRC (2019) Forest change — the Canadian Forest Service program on adaptation on climate change. In: Forest change. NRC. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/climate-change/impacts-adaptations/impacts-forests/forest-change-adaptation-tools/17770
  72. Nursey-Bray M, Pecl GT, Frusher S et al. (2012) Communicating climate change: climate change risk perceptions and rock lobster fishers, Tasmania. Mar Policy 36:753–759.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.10.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. O’Brien KL, Wolf J (2010) A values-based approach to vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. Wiley Interdiscip Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.30 Google Scholar
  74. O’Connor RE, Bord RJ, Fisher A (1999) Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Anal 19:461–471.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007004813446 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pearce W, Brown B, Nerlich B, Koteyko N (2015) Communicating climate change: conduits, content, and consensus: communicating climate change. Wiley Interdiscip Rev 6:613–626.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.366 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Prokopy LS, Carlton JS, Haigh T et al. (2017) Useful to Usable: developing usable climate science for agriculture. Clim Risk Manag 15:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2016.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. R Core Team (2015) A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  78. Reser JP, Bradley GL, Ellul MC (2014) Encountering climate change: ‘seeing’ is more than ‘believing.’. Wiley Interdiscip Rev 5:521–537.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.286 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Reser JP (2012) Public risk perceptions, understandings and responses to climate change and natural disasters in Australia, 2010 and 2011. National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Griffith University, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  80. Reyer CPO, Bathgate S, Blennow K et al. (2017) Are forest disturbances amplifying or canceling out climate change-induced productivity changes in European forests? Environ Res Lett 12:034027.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa5ef1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Rindfleisch A, Malter AJ, Ganesan S, Moorman C (2008) Cross-sectional versus longitudinal survey research: concepts, findings, and guidelines. J Mark Res 45:261–279.  https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.3.261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Royal Society (1985) The public understanding of science. Royal Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  83. Ruspini E (1999) Longitudinal research and the analysis of social change. Qual Quant 33:219–227.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004692619235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Russill C, Nyssa Z (2009) The tipping point trend in climate change communication. Glob Environ Change 19:336–344.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Schoene DHF, Bernier PY (2012) Adapting forestry and forests to climate change: A challenge to change the paradigm. For Policy Econ 24:12–19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.04.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Stroud NJ (2007) Media Effects, Selective Exposure, and Fahrenheit 9/11. Political Commun 24:415–432.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600701641565 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Swedish Commission on Climate and Vulnerability (2007) Sweden facing climate change – threats and opportunities. Ministry of the Environment, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  88. Swedish Forest Agency (2014) Skogsstatistisk årsbok 2014 [Statistical yearbook of forestry 2014]. Skogsstyrelsen, JönköpingGoogle Scholar
  89. Swim J, Claton S, Doherty T et al. (2009) Psychology and global climate change: addressing a multi-faceted phenomenon and set of challenges. American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., USAGoogle Scholar
  90. Uggla Y, Lidskog R (2016) Climate risks and forest practices: forest owners’ acceptance of advice concerning climate change. Scand J For Res 31:618–625.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2015.1134648 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. US Forest Service (2019) Adaption partners. http://adaptationpartners.org/
  92. van der Linden S (2015) The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: towards a comprehensive model. J Environ Psychol 41:112–124.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. van Valkengoed AM, Steg L (2019) Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour. Nat Clim Change 9:158–163.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0371-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Vulturius G, André K, Gerger Swartling Å, et al (2019) Successes and shortcomings of climate communication: insights from a longitudinal analysis of Swedish forest owners. J Environ Planning Manag.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1646228
  95. Vulturius G, André K, Swartling ÅG et al. (2018) The relative importance of subjective and structural factors for individual adaptation to climate change by forest owners in Sweden. Reg Environ Change 18:511–520.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1218-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Weinstein ND (1989) Effects of personal experience on self-protective behavior. Psychol Bull 105:31–50.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Whitmarsh L (2008) Are flood victims more concerned about climate change than other people? The role of direct experience in risk perception and behavioural response. J Risk Res 11:351–374.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870701552235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wiersum KF, Elands BHM, Hoogstra MA (2005) Small-scale forest ownership across Europe: characteristics and future potential. Small-Scale For 4:1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-005-0001-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wibeck V (2013) Enhancing learning, communication and public engagement about climate change – some lessons from recent literature. Environ Educ Res: 1–25.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.812720 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wiest SL, Raymond L, Clawson RA (2015) Framing, partisan predispositions, and public opinion on climate change. Glob Environ Change 31:187–198.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Wirth V, Prutsch A, Grothmann T (2014) Communicating climate change adaptation: state of the art and lessons learned from ten OECD countries. GAIA - Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 23:30–39.  https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.23.1.9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Wittink DR (2004) Journal of marketing research: 2 Ps. J Mark Res 41:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.41.1.1.25089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Wolf J, Moser SC (2011) Individual understandings, perceptions, and engagement with climate change: insights from in-depth studies across the world. Wiley Interdiscip Rev 2:547–569.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stockholm Environment InstituteStockholmSweden
  2. 2.School of GeosciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  3. 3.Institute of Meteorology and Climate ResearchKarlsruhe Institute of TechnologyGarmisch-PartenkirchenGermany

Personalised recommendations