Table 11 Questions and response options of the questionnaire used in the online survey with German forest owners and managers
Questions | Response options | Justification |
|---|---|---|
Q01: Do you think climate change will have an influence on your forest? | No influence to strong influence (7-point Likert scale) | 7-point Likert scale used for comparison reasons with the variables of the theory of planned behavior |
Q02: When do you think climate change impacts will be noticeable in your forest? | Not at all (0), right now (1), in the next 10 years (2), in the next 20 years (3), in the next 50 years (4), in the next 100 years (5), later (6) | Typical future projections cover 100 years; as such, response options were distributed across this time frame |
Q03: Have you experienced the following hazards? [Note: Variable “hazard experience” (HE)] | 4-point semantic differential scale used to cover subjective experience of hazards. Since these values cannot be quantified among several respondents, a low number of response options was chosen to increase comparability. | |
(1) Storm damage | Not yet (0), once (1), seldom (2), frequent (3) | |
(2) Forest fire | ||
(3) Ice damage | ||
(4) Flood | ||
(5) Landslide/flash flood | ||
(6) Drought | ||
(7) Large-scale damages through game to the stand or regeneration | ||
(8) Large-scale damages through insects (e.g., bark beetle) | ||
(9) Large-scale damages through pathogens (e.g., ash dieback) | ||
Q04: How do you assess the future damage risk of the following hazards? | 7-point Likert scale used for comparison reasons with the variables of the theory of planned behavior | |
(1) Storm damage | Significantly lower (− 3), lower (− 2), slightly lower (− 1), constant (0), slightly higher (1), higher (2), significantly higher (3) | |
(2) Forest fire | ||
(3) Ice damage | ||
(4) Flood | ||
(5) Landslide / flash flood | ||
(6) Drought | ||
(7) Large-scale damages through game to the stand or regeneration | ||
(8) Large-scale damages through insects (e.g., bark beetle) | ||
(9) Large-scale damages through pathogens (e.g., ash dieback) | ||
How do you assess the following statements? | ||
Q05: I consider climate change adaptation to be an important objective in my forest. [Note: Variable “behavioral belief 1” (BB1)] | I do not agree to I fully agree (7-point Likert scale) | 7-point Likert scale is established in the application of the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 2002) |
Q06: Climate change adaptation is a top priority for me. [Note: Variable “behavioral belief 2” (BB2)] | 7-point Likert scale is established in the application of the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 2002) | |
Q07: Climate change adaptation is an important topic in my professional environment. [Note: Variable “normative belief 1” (NB1)] | 7-point Likert scale is established in the application of the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 2002) | |
Q08: I consider the adaptation of forests to climate change an important social task. [Note: Variable “normative belief 2” (NB1)] | 7-point Likert scale is established in the application of the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 2002) | |
Q09: The present state of science is sufficient for a successful climate change adaptation of my forest business. [Note: “Variable control belief 1” (CB1)] | 7-point Likert scale is established in the application of the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 2002) | |
Q10: As forest owners or managers it is in our hands to successfully adapt our forests to climate change. [Note: Variable “control belief 2” (CB2)] | 7-point Likert scale is established in the application of the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 2002) | |
Q11: Which of these adaptive measures have you already implemented? | Dichotomous variable | |
(1) Enrichment with further tree species (mixed forests or on property level) | Not implemented (0), implemented (1) | |
(2) Cultivation of drought-resistant tree species | ||
(3) Thinning to stabilize forest stands | ||
(4) Frequent patrols to ensure recognition of potential damages | ||
(5) Shorter rotation periods to secure stand stability | ||
(6) Sufficient road networks to ensure the accessibility of (potentially) damaged areas | ||
(7) Insurance or financial reserves in case of damages (e.g., storm, fire) | ||
(8) Consideration of individual risk factors in operational planning | ||
(9) Adaptation of operational goals to new climatic conditions | ||
(10) Cooperation and agreements with other forest owners in cases of damage | ||
Q12: How likely is it that you will (further) implement the following adaptive measures in the next ten years? [Note: Variable “intention” (IT)] | 7-point Likert scale is established in the application of the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 2002) | |
(1) Enrichment with further tree species (mixed forests or on property level) | Unlikely to likely (7-point Likert scale) | |
(2) Cultivation of drought-resistant tree species | ||
(3) Thinning to stabilize forest stands | ||
(4) Frequent patrols to ensure recognition of potential damages | ||
(5) Shorter rotation periods to secure stand stability | ||
(6) Sufficient road networks to ensure the accessibility of (potentially) damaged areas | ||
(7) Insurance or financial reserves in case of damages (e.g., storm, fire) | ||
(8) Consideration of individual risk factors in operational planning | ||
(9) Adaptation of operational goals to new climatic conditions | ||
(10) Cooperation and agreements with other forest owners in cases of damage | ||
Q13: How do you assess the following measures for climate change adaptation? [Note: Variable “attitude” (AT)] | 7-point Likert scale is established in the application of the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 2002) | |
(1) Enrichment with further tree species (mixed forests or on property level) | Unsuitable for climate change adaption to suitable for climate change adaptation (7-point Likert scale) | |
(2) Cultivation of drought-resistant tree species | ||
(3) Thinning to stabilize forest stands | ||
(4) Frequent patrols to ensure recognition of potential damages | ||
(5) Shorter rotation periods to secure stand stability | ||
(6) Sufficient road networks to ensure the accessibility of (potentially) damaged areas | ||
(7) Insurance or financial reserves in case of damages (e.g., storm, fire) | ||
(8) Consideration of individual risk factors in operational planning | ||
(9) Adaptation of operational goals to new climatic conditions | ||
(10) Cooperation and agreements with other forest owners in cases of damage | ||
Q14: The following adaptive measures are endorsed and implemented in my professional environment (e.g., by neighboring forest owners, forest owner associations, consultants). [Note: Variable “social norm” (SN)] | 7-point Likert scale is established in the application of the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 2002) | |
(1) Enrichment with further tree species (mixed forests or on property level) | I do not agree to I fully agree (7-point Likert scale) | |
(2) Cultivation of drought-resistant tree species | ||
(3) Thinning to stabilize forest stands | ||
(4) Frequent patrols to ensure recognition of potential damages | ||
(5) Shorter rotation periods to secure stand stability | ||
(6) Sufficient road networks to ensure the accessibility of (potentially) damaged areas | ||
(7) Insurance or financial reserves in case of damages (e.g., storm, fire) | ||
(8) Consideration of individual risk factors in operational planning | ||
(9) Adaptation of operational goals to new climatic conditions | ||
(10) Cooperation and agreements with other forest owners in cases of damage | ||
Q15: I (or my consultants) have the necessary knowledge and resources to implement the following adaptive measures. [Note: Variable “perceived behavioral control” (PBC)] | 7-point Likert scale is established in the application of the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 2002) | |
(1) Enrichment with further tree species (mixed forests or on property level) | I do not agree to I fully agree (7-point Likert scale) | |
(2) Cultivation of drought-resistant tree species | ||
(3) Thinning to stabilize forest stands | ||
(4) Frequent patrols to ensure recognition of potential damages | ||
(5) Shorter rotation periods to secure stand stability | ||
(6) Sufficient road networks to ensure the accessibility of (potentially) damaged areas | ||
(7) Insurance or financial reserves in case of damages (e.g., storm, fire) | ||
(8) Consideration of individual risk factors in operational planning | ||
(9) Adaptation of operational goals to new climatic conditions | ||
(10) Cooperation and agreements with other forest owners in cases of damage | ||
Q16: Which ownership type can your forest be attributed to? | Private forest, corporate forest, state forest | Ownership types in Germany |
Q17: What is the size of your forest? | < 2 ha, < 5 ha, < 20 ha, < 50 ha, < 100 ha, < 200 ha, > 200 ha | Typical categorization of property sizes in Germany |
Q18: Which function do you have? [Note: multiple answers possible] | Owner, operation manager, forest ranger, consultant, other (free input) | Typical possible categories in forest enterprises in Germany |
Q19: Do you have a forestry education? | No forestry related education, vocational training, academic education | Typical qualification pathways in Germany |
Q20: Is your forest business part of a management cooperative? | Yes, no | Degree of organization, typically in small-scale private forests |
Q21: Please enter you age. | Free input | |
Q22: Please select your gender. | Male, female, other/no response | |
Q23: Please name your region. | Choice of all German federal states | |