Filters

2019 - 20202

More filters

20222
Reset filters

Settings

Subject: Decision-making ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Inconsistent recognition of uncertainty in studies of climate change impacts on forests
    (Bristol : IOP Publ., 2019) Petr, M.; Vacchiano, G.; Thom, D.; Mairota, P.; Kautz, M.; Goncalves, L.M.S.; Yousefpour, R.; Kaloudis, S.; Reyer, C.P.O.
    Background. Uncertainty about climate change impacts on forests can hinder mitigation and adaptation actions. Scientific enquiry typically involves assessments of uncertainties, yet different uncertainty components emerge in different studies. Consequently, inconsistent understanding of uncertainty among different climate impact studies (from the impact analysis to implementing solutions) can be an additional reason for delaying action. In this review we (a) expanded existing uncertainty assessment frameworks into one harmonised framework for characterizing uncertainty, (b) used this framework to identify and classify uncertainties in climate change impacts studies on forests, and (c) summarised the uncertainty assessment methods applied in those studies. Methods. We systematically reviewed climate change impact studies published between 1994 and 2016. We separated these studies into those generating information about climate change impacts on forests using models –'modelling studies', and those that used this information to design management actions—'decision-making studies'. We classified uncertainty across three dimensions: nature, level, and location, which can be further categorised into specific uncertainty types. Results. We found that different uncertainties prevail in modelling versus decision-making studies. Epistemic uncertainty is the most common nature of uncertainty covered by both types of studies, whereas ambiguity plays a pronounced role only in decision-making studies. Modelling studies equally investigate all levels of uncertainty, whereas decision-making studies mainly address scenario uncertainty and recognised ignorance. Finally, the main location of uncertainty for both modelling and decision-making studies is within the driving forces—representing, e.g. socioeconomic or policy changes. The most frequently used methods to assess uncertainty are expert elicitation, sensitivity and scenario analysis, but a full suite of methods exists that seems currently underutilized. Discussion & Synthesis. The misalignment of uncertainty types addressed by modelling and decision-making studies may complicate adaptation actions early in the implementation pathway. Furthermore, these differences can be a potential barrier for communicating research findings to decision-makers.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    No polarization–Expected Values of Climate Change Impacts among European Forest Professionals and Scientists
    (Basel : MDPI, 2020) Persson, Johannes; Blennow, Kristina; Gonçalves, Luísa; Borys, Alexander; Dutcă, Ioan; Hynynen, Jari; Janeczko, Emilia; Lyubenova, Mariyana; Martel, Simon; Merganic, Jan; Merganičová, Katarína; Peltoniemi, Mikko; Petr, Michal; Reboredo, Fernando H.; Vacchiano, Giorgio; Reyer, Christopher P.O.
    The role of values in climate-related decision-making is a prominent theme of climate communication research. The present study examines whether forest professionals are more driven by values than scientists are, and if this results in value polarization. A questionnaire was designed to elicit and assess the values assigned to expected effects of climate change by forest professionals and scientists working on forests and climate change in Europe. The countries involved covered a north-to-south and west-to-east gradient across Europe, representing a wide range of bio-climatic conditions and a mix of economic–social–political structures. We show that European forest professionals and scientists do not exhibit polarized expectations about the values of specific impacts of climate change on forests in their countries. In fact, few differences between forest professionals and scientists were found. However, there are interesting differences in the expected values of forest professionals with regard to climate change impacts across European countries. In Northern European countries, the aggregated values of the expected effects are more neutral than they are in Southern Europe, where they are more negative. Expectations about impacts on timber production, economic returns, and regulatory ecosystem services are mostly negative, while expectations about biodiversity and energy production are mostly positive.