Advertisement

Regional Environmental Change

, Volume 15, Issue 8, pp 1595–1609 | Cite as

Institutional factors and opportunities for adapting European forest management to climate change

  • Laura Bouriaud
  • Mariella Marzano
  • Manfred Lexer
  • Liviu Nichiforel
  • Christopher Reyer
  • Christian Temperli
  • Heli Peltola
  • Ché Elkin
  • Gabriel Duduman
  • Philip Taylor
  • Stephen Bathgate
  • Jose G. Borges
  • Sandra Clerkx
  • Jordi Garcia-Gonzalo
  • Carlos Gracia
  • Geerten Hengeveld
  • Seppo Kellomäki
  • Georgi Kostov
  • Michael Maroschek
  • Bart Muys
  • Gert-Jan Nabuurs
  • Bruce Nicoll
  • Marc Palahí
  • Werner Rammer
  • Duncan Ray
  • Mart-Jan Schelhaas
  • Louise Sing
  • Margarida Tomé
  • Juergen Zell
  • Marc Hanewinkel
Original Article

Abstract

Despite the fact that the institutional environment is acknowledged to influence the implementation of regional adaptations of forest management to climate change, there are few empirical studies addressing the institutional factors and opportunities of adaptation. Using Ostrom’s institutional analysis and development framework, we aimed to identify : (1) the critical and distinctive characteristics of the forest resource and institutional context that may determine how climate change-adaptive forest management measures are implemented and (2) the opportunities for implementing the planned adaptation measures. The analysis is performed on ten European case study regions which differed in many resource-dependent factors, policy arena factors and incentives for changes. The main factors influencing the adaptation are the ownership pattern, the level of policy formation and the nature of forest goods and services. Opportunities for adaptation are driven by the openness of the forest management planning processes to the stakeholders participation, the degree to which business as usual management is projected to be non-satisfactory in the future, and by the number and nature of obstacles to adaptation. Promoting local self-governance mechanisms and the participation of the external stakeholders in forest management planning or in the regional forest or climate change policy adaptation may be a way of overcoming path dependency, behavioural obstacles and potential policy failures in implementing adaptation. The study argues that both climate change belief systems and political participation are important to explain adaptation to climate change when multiple decision-making levels are at stake.

Keywords

Climate change adaptation Forest planning Institutional analysis and development framework Ownership pattern Forest ecosystem services 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was founded by MOTIVE (models for adaptive forest management, Grant No. 226544), by INTEGRAL (future-oriented integrated management of European forest landscapes, Grant No. 282887) and by HubforClimate (UEFISCDI Grant PN-II-RU-TE-2011-3-0222). Kristina Blennow and the two anonymous referees are greatly acknowledged for suggestions to improve the manuscript.

Supplementary material

10113_2015_852_MOESM1_ESM.doc (98 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 98 kb)
10113_2015_852_MOESM2_ESM.doc (60 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 60 kb)
10113_2015_852_MOESM3_ESM.doc (76 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOC 76 kb)

References

  1. Adger WN, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL (2005) Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Glob Environ Change 15(2):77–86. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adger WN, Agrawala S, Mirza MMQ, Conde C, O’Brien KL, Pulhin J, Pulwarty R, Smit B, Takahashi K (2007) Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, Hanson CE, van der Linden PJ (eds) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 719–743Google Scholar
  3. Agrawal A (2010) Local institutions and adaptation to climate change. Social dimensions of climate change: equity and vulnerability in a warming world, pp 173–198Google Scholar
  4. Andersson K (2006) Understanding decentralized forest governance: an application of the institutional analysis and development framework. Sustain Sci Pract Policy 2(1):25–35Google Scholar
  5. Andersson M, Kellomäki S, Gardiner B, Blennow K (2014) Life-style services and yield from south-Swedish forests adaptively managed against the risk of wind damage: a simulation study. Reg Environ Change 1–12. doi: 10.1007/s10113-014-0687-8
  6. Bass S, Balogun P, Mayers J, Dubois O, Morrison E, Howard B (1998) Institutional change in public sector forestry: a review of the issues. International Institute for Environment and DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  7. Biesbroek GR, Klostermann JE, Termeer CJ, Kabat P (2013) On the nature of barriers to climate change adaptation. Reg Environ Change 13(5):1119–1129. doi: 10.1007/s10113-013-0421-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blennow K, Persson J (2009) Climate change: motivation for taking measure to adapt. Glob Environ Change 19:100–104. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blennow K, Persson J, Tomé M, Hanewinkel M (2012) Climate change: believing and seeing implies adapting. PLoS One 7(11):e50182. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050182 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blennow K, Persson J, Wallin A, Vareman N, Persson E (2014) Understanding risk in forest ecosystem services: implications for effective risk management, communication and planning. Forestry 87:219–228. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpt032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bouriaud L (2012) Motive deliverable drivers of changes-review of European policy documents and socio-economic trends. Unpublished manuscript. http://motive-project.net/files/DOWNLOAD2/MOTIVE_Deliverable%20D2_1_version%202_2.pdf. Accessed 4.02.2014
  12. Bouriaud L, Nichiforel L, Weiss G, Bajaktari A, Curovic M, Dobsinska Z, Glavonjic P, Jarský V, Sarvasova Z, Teder M, Zalite Z (2013) Governance of private forests in Eastern and Central Europe: an analysis of forest harvesting and management rights. Ann Forest Res 56(1):199–215. doi: 10.15287/afr.2013.54 Google Scholar
  13. Bouriaud L, Bouriaud O, Elkin C, Temperli C, Reyer C, Duduman G, Barnoaiea I, Nichiforel L, Zimmermann N, Bugmann H (2014) Age-class disequilibrium as an opportunity for adaptive forest management in the Carpathian Mountains, Romania. Reg Environ Change 1–12. doi: 10.1007/s10113-014-0717-6
  14. Brooks N, Adger WN, Kelly PM (2005) The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Glob Environ Change 15(2):151–163. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buttoud G (1998) Les politiques forestieres. Que sais-je. PUF:189Google Scholar
  16. Clement F (2010) Analysing decentralised natural resource governance: proposition for a ‘Politicised’ institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Sci 43(2):129–156. doi: 10.1007/s11077-009-9100-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clement F, Amezaga JM (2013) Conceptualising context in institutional reforms of land and natural resource management: the case of Vietnam. Int J Commons 7(1):140–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cole DH (2015) Advantages of a polycentric approach to climate change policy. Nat Clim Change 5(2):114–118. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2490 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cox M (2011) Advancing the diagnostic analysis of environmental problems. Int J Commons 5(2):346–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cubbage F, Harou P, Sills E (2005) Policy instruments to enhance multi-functional forest management. For Pol Econ 9:833–851. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2006.03.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. deLeon P (1999) The stages approach to the policy process: What has it done? Where is it going. In Sabatier PA (ed) Theories of the policy process. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 19–32Google Scholar
  22. Engle NL (2011) Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Glob Environ Change 21(2):647–656. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gibson CC, McKean MA, Ostrom E (eds) (2000) People and forests: communities, institutions, and governance. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Grothmann T, Patt A (2005) Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change. Glob Environ Change 15(3):199–213. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gupta J, Termeer K, Klostermann J, Meijerink S, van den Brink M, Jong P, Nooteboom S, Bergsmaa E (2010) The Adaptive Capacity Wheel: a method to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society. Environ Sci Policy 13:459–471. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2010.05.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hengeveld GM, Didion M, Clerkx S, Elkin C, Nabuurs GJ, Schelhaas MJ (2014) The landscape-level effect of individual-owner adaptation to climate change in Dutch forests. Reg Environ Change 1–15. doi: 10.1007/s10113-014-0718-5
  27. Irimie DL, Essmann HF (2009) Forest property rights in the frame of public policies and societal change. For Pol Econ 11(2):95–101. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2008.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kempeneers P, Sedano F, Seebach L, Strobl P, San-Miguel-Ayanz J (2011) Data fusion of different spatial resolution remote sensing images applied to forest-type mapping. Geosci Remote Sens IEEE Trans 49(12):4977–4986. doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2011.2158548 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kiser L, Ostrom E (1982) The three worlds of action: a metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches. In: Ostrom E (ed) Strategies of political inquiry. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 179–222Google Scholar
  30. Lawrence A, Marzano M (2014) Is the private forest sector adapting to climate change? A study of forest managers in north Wales. Ann For Sci 71:291–300. doi: 10.1007/s13595-013-0326-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lê S, Josse J, Husson F (2008) FactoMineR: an R package for multivariate analysis. J Stat Softw 25(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lexer M (2013) Management recommendations. Motive Deliverable 6.8. Unpublished manuscriptGoogle Scholar
  33. Libecap GD (1994) The conditions for successful collective action. J Theor Polit 6(4):563–592. doi: 10.1177/0951692894006004007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lindner M, Maroschek M, Netherer S, Kremer A, Barbati A, Garcia-Gonzalo J, Seidl R, Delzon S, Corona P, Kolström M, Lexer MJ, Marchetti M (2010) Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. For Ecol Manag 259(4):698–709. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lukasiewicz A, Pittock J, Finlayson M (2015) Institutional challenges of adopting ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change. Reg Environ Change 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s10113-015-0765-6
  36. Mahoney J, Thelen K (2010) A theory of gradual institutional change. In: Mahoney J, Thelen K (eds) Explaining institutional change: ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–37Google Scholar
  37. Maroschek M, Rammer W, Lexer MJ (2014) Using a novel assessment framework to evaluate protective functions and timber production in Austrian mountain forests under climate change. Reg Environ Change 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s10113-014-0691-z
  38. Marzano M (2013) Stakeholder and Decision-Maker Interactions: annual stakeholders report. Motive deliverable D7.1. Unpublished manuscriptGoogle Scholar
  39. McDonald J (2011) The role of law in adapting to climate change. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change 2(2):283–295. doi: 10.1002/wcc.96 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mermet L, Farcy C (2011) Contexts and concepts of forest planning in a diverse and contradictory world. For Policy Econ 13(5):361–365. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.03.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moser SC, Ekstrom JA (2010) A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(51):22026–22203. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1007887107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Naess LO, Bang G, Eriksen S, Vevatne J (2005) Institutional adaptation to climate change: flood responses at the municipal level in Norway. Glob Environ Change 15(2):125–138. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ogden AE, Innes JL (2007a) Perspectives of forest practitioners on climate change adaptation in the Yukon and Northwest Territories of Canada. For Chron 83(4):557–569. doi: 10.5558/tfc83557-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ogden AE, Innes JL (2007b) Incorporating climate change adaptation considerations into forest management and planning in the boreal forest. Int For Rev 9(3):713–733. doi: 10.1505/ifor.9.3.713 Google Scholar
  45. Ogden AE, Innes JL (2008) Climate change adaptation and regional forest planning in southern Yukon, Canada. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 13(8):833–861. doi: 10.1007/s11027-008-9144-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ostrom E (1999) Institutional rational choice: an analysis of the institutional and development framework. In: Sabatier P (ed) Theories of the policy process. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 35–72Google Scholar
  48. Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  49. Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social–ecological systems. Science 325:419–422. doi: 10.1126/science.1172133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ostrom E (2010) Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. Am Econ Rev 641–672. doi: 10.1257/aer.100.3.641
  51. Ostrom E (2011) Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Stud J 39(1):7–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ostrom E (2012) Nested externalities and polycentric institutions: must we wait for global solutions to climate change before taking actions at other scales? Econ Theory 49(2):353–369. doi: 10.1007/s00199-010-0558-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ostrom E, Cox M (2010) Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social–ecological analysis. Environ Conserv 37(04):451–463. doi: 10.1017/S0376892910000834 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ostrom E, Gardner R, Walker J (1994) Rules, games, and common-pool resources. University of Michigan Press, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  55. Päivinen R, Lehikoinen M, Schuck A, Häme T, Väätäinen S, Kennedy P, Folving S (2001) Combining Earth observation data and forest statistics. EFI Research Report 14. European Forest Institute, Joint Research Centre—European Commission. EUR 19911 EN 101 pGoogle Scholar
  56. Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (2007) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  57. Persson E, Norman J, Götz S, Faias SP, Hanewinkel M, Tomé M, Blennow K (2011) A report on stakeholder approaches to and views on ways and options for handling uncertainty and change. Motive deliverable D5.4. Unpublished manuscriptGoogle Scholar
  58. Polski MM, Ostrom E (1999) An institutional framework for policy analysis and design. In Workshop in political theory and policy analysis working paper W98-27. Indiana University, Bloomington, INGoogle Scholar
  59. Poteete AR, Ostrom E (2004) Heterogeneity, group size and collective action: the role of institutions in forest management. Dev Change 35(3):435–461. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2004.00360.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ray D, Bathgate S, Moseley D, Taylor P, Nicoll B, Pizzirani S, Gardiner B (2014) Comparing the provision of ecosystem services in plantation forests under alternative climate change adaptation management options in Wales. Reg Environ Change 1–13:1007. doi: 10.1007/s10113-014-0644-6 Google Scholar
  61. Reyer C, Bachinger J, Bloch R, Hattermann F, Ibisch P, Kreft S, Lasch P, Lucht W, Nowicki C, Spathelf P, Stock M, Welp M (2012) Climate change adaptation and sustainable regional development: a case-study for the Federal State of Brandenburg, Germany. Reg Environ Change 12(3):523–542. doi: 10.1007/s10113-011-0269-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Reyer C, Lasch-Born P, Suckow F, Gutsch M, Murawski A, Pilz T (2014) Projections of regional changes in forest net primary productivity for different tree species in Europe driven by climate change and carbon dioxide. Ann For Sci 71:211–225. doi: 10.1007/s13595-013-0306-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schlüter A (2007) Institutional change in the forestry sector—the explanatory potential of New Institutional Economics. For Policy Econ 9:1090–1099. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2006.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schröter D, Cramer W, Leemans R, Prentice IC, Araújo MB, Arnell NW, Bondeau A, Bugmann H, Carter TR, Gracia CA, de la Vega-Leinert AC, Erhard M, Ewert F, Glendining M, House JI, Kankaanpää S, Klein RJT, Lavorel S, Lindner M, Metzger MJ, Meyer J, Mitchell TD, Reginster I, Rounsevell M, Sabaté S, Sitch S, Smith B, Smith J, Smith P, Sykes MT, Thonicke K, Thuiller W, Tuck G, Zaehle S, Zierl B (2005) Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science 310(5752):1333–1337. doi: 10.1126/science.1115233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schuck A, Van Brusselen J, Päivinen R, Häme T, Kennedy P, Folving S (2002) Compilation of a calibrated European forest map derived from NOAA-AVHRR data. Internal Report no. 13. European Forest Institute, Joensuu, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  66. Sharma V, Orindi V, Hesse C, Pattison J, Anderson S (2014) Supporting local climate adaptation planning and implementation through local governance and decentralised finance provision. Dev Pract 24(4):579–590. doi: 10.1080/09614524.2014.907240 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Temperli C, Bugmann H, Elkin C (2012) Adaptive management for competing forest goods and services under climate change. Ecol Appl 22(8):2065–2077. doi: 10.1890/12-0210.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Trasobares A, Bugmann H (eds) (2011) MOTIVE D4.3. Descriptions and algorithms characterizing current and possible future silvicultural treatments in the MOTIVE Case Study areas. http://motive-project.net/files/DOWNLOAD2/MOTIVE_D4%203_1.pdf. Accessed 4 Feb 2014
  69. Whaley L, Weatherhead EK (2014) An integrated approach to analyzing (adaptive) co-management using the ‘Politicized’ IAD framework. Ecol Soc 19(1):10. doi: 10.5751/ES-06177-190110
  70. Yousefpour R, Hanewinkel M (2015) Forestry professionals’ perceptions of climate change, impacts and adaptation strategies for forests in south-west Germany. Clim Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-015-1330-5 Google Scholar
  71. Yousefpour R, Temperli C, Bugmann H, Elkin C, Hanewinkel M, Meilby H, Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ (2013) Updating beliefs and combining evidence in adaptive forest management under climate change: a case-study of Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst) in the Black Forest, Germany. J Environ Manag 122:56–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.03.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Bouriaud
    • 1
  • Mariella Marzano
    • 2
  • Manfred Lexer
    • 3
  • Liviu Nichiforel
    • 1
  • Christopher Reyer
    • 4
  • Christian Temperli
    • 5
    • 6
  • Heli Peltola
    • 7
  • Ché Elkin
    • 5
    • 8
  • Gabriel Duduman
    • 1
  • Philip Taylor
    • 2
    • 9
  • Stephen Bathgate
    • 2
  • Jose G. Borges
    • 10
  • Sandra Clerkx
    • 11
  • Jordi Garcia-Gonzalo
    • 10
  • Carlos Gracia
    • 12
    • 13
  • Geerten Hengeveld
    • 11
  • Seppo Kellomäki
    • 7
  • Georgi Kostov
    • 14
  • Michael Maroschek
    • 3
  • Bart Muys
    • 15
  • Gert-Jan Nabuurs
    • 11
  • Bruce Nicoll
    • 2
  • Marc Palahí
    • 16
  • Werner Rammer
    • 3
  • Duncan Ray
    • 2
  • Mart-Jan Schelhaas
    • 11
  • Louise Sing
    • 2
  • Margarida Tomé
    • 10
  • Juergen Zell
    • 6
  • Marc Hanewinkel
    • 6
    • 17
  1. 1.University Stefan cel Mare of SuceavaSuceavaRomania
  2. 2.Forest Research, Northern Research StationRoslinUK
  3. 3.Institute of SilvicultureUniversity of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU)ViennaAustria
  4. 4.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchPostdamGermany
  5. 5.Forest Ecology, Department of Environmental Systems ScienceETHZürichSwitzerland
  6. 6.Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSLZürichSwitzerland
  7. 7.Faculty of Science and Forestry, School of Forest SciencesUniversity of Eastern FinlandJoensuuFinland
  8. 8.University of Northern British ColumbiaPrince GeorgeCanada
  9. 9.Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH)EdinburghUK
  10. 10.Forest Research Centre, School of Agriculture (ISA)University of LisbonLisbonPortugal
  11. 11.Alterra, Wageningen University and ResearchWageningenNetherlands
  12. 12.CREAF - Centre de Recerca Ecològica i Aplicacions ForestalsBarcelonaSpain
  13. 13.Departamento de Ecología, Facultad de BiologíaUniversidad de Barcelona DiagonalBarcelonaSpain
  14. 14.Forestry UniversitySofiaBulgaria
  15. 15.Mediterranean Regional OfficeEuropean Forest InstituteBarcelonaSpain
  16. 16.European Forest InstituteJoensuuFinland
  17. 17.Faculty of Environment and Natural ResourcesUniversity of FreiburgFreiburg im BreisgauGermany

Personalised recommendations