- Email: [email protected]
Climate change: Motivation for taking measure to adapt
Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 100–104
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Global Environmental Change journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha
Climate change: Motivation for taking measure to adapt Kristina Blennow a,*, Johannes Persson b a b
Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 49, SE-230 53 Alnarp, Sweden Department of Philosophy, Lund University, Kungshuset, Lundaga˚rd, SE-222 22 Lund, Sweden
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history: Received 14 April 2008 Received in revised form 1 September 2008 Accepted 20 October 2008
We tested two consequences of a currently influential theory based on the notion of seeing adaptations to climate change as local adjustments to deal with changing conditions within the constraints of the broader economic–social–political arrangements. The notion leaves no explicit role for the strength of personal beliefs in climate change and adaptive capacity. The consequences were: (i) adaptive action to climate change taken by an individual who is exposed to and sensitive to climate change is not influenced to a considerable degree by their strength of belief in climate change and (ii) adaptive action to climate change taken by an individual who is exposed to and sensitive to climate change is not influenced to a considerable degree by their strength of belief in an adaptive capacity. Data from a 2004 questionnaire of 1950 Swedish private individual forest owners, who were assumed exposed to and sensitive to climate change, were used. Strength of belief in climate change and adaptive capacities were found to be crucial factors for explaining observed differences in adaptation among Swedish forest owners. ß 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Adaptation Belief Adaptive capacity Epistemic risk
1. Introduction There is increasing evidence that climate change is occurring. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fourth assessment report there is ‘‘very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming’’ (IPCC, 2007, p. 3). Climate change has developed into an issue of widespread and major concern where efforts for mitigation and adaptation to changing conditions have been strongly recommended by the IPCC (2007) and put high on the political agendas of major governmental bodies, e.g. the EU (Grundmann, 2007). However, according to Heath and Gifford (2006) at least three characteristics of climate change make it different from other, better understood natural disasters or hazards (cf. Etkin and Ho, 2007). First, there is uncertainty as to whether climate change is actually occurring. Second, the gradual nature of climate change makes it harder to notice. Third, the causes of climate change remain uncertain and controversial. In their own right, these characteristics motivate prima facie doubt that any model of adaptation to climate change that does not take cognitive variables into account can be satisfactory. It is part of common wisdom that beliefs and desires influence action. For instance, in 1997 Weber found significant correlations between 48 North American farmers’
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 40 415230; fax: +46 40 462325. E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Blennow). 0959-3780/$ – see front matter ß 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.003
strength of belief in climate change and adaptive measures taken by them to reduce the negative consequences of climate change. Any theory of adaptation that does not make direct use of cognitive variables must rely on assumptions that beliefs will nevertheless be appropriately correlated with the non-cognitive variables explaining adaptive measures in the model. The characteristics claimed by Heath and Gifford (2006) make this assumption somewhat implausible. This is because lack of robust knowledge leads to problems when trying to accurately monitor the risks involved (cf. Sahlin and Persson, 1994; Persson, 2007) and allows for considerable variation in strength of belief in climate change among individuals. The psychological and cognitive aspects of adaptation to climate change are receiving increasing attention (cf. overviews by Oppenheimer and Todorov, 2006; Adger et al., 2007). For instance, Grothmann and Patt (2005) argue that socio-cognitive variables ought to be included in models of adaptation and adaptive capacity. Their case studies build on adaptation to welldefined events such as farmers’ adaptation to risk of drought in Zimbabwe and residents’ proactive adaptation to the risk of river flooding. Their model adds to the preconceived implausibility of models of adaptation to climate change only in terms of objective, physical, institutional or economic constraints. It can, however, only indirectly shed light on the importance of cognitive aspects for explaining adaptation to a global, long-term phenomenon, such as climate change. In particular, since Weber’s findings in 1997 little appears to have been done on the link between strength of belief in, and
K. Blennow, J. Persson / Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 100–104
adaptation to climate change. Only rarely is it mentioned in general accounts of the theory of adaptation to climate change that belief in climate change is a prerequisite to adaptation. For example, Smit et al. (2000, p. 225) describe adaptation as ‘‘adjustments in ecological-socio-economic systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli, their effects or impacts’’. Interestingly, in more recent accounts of adaptation to climate change the reference to expectation or belief in change is often not made at all. For example, in their review Smit and Wandel (2006, p. 289) conclude that adaptations to climate change ‘‘can be considered as local or community-based adjustments to deal with changing conditions within the constraints of the broader economic–social– political arrangements’’. According to the fourth IPCC assessment report (Adger et al., 2007), adaptation to climate change takes place through adjustments to reduce vulnerability or to enhance resilience. Hence, adaptation includes taking action to reduce risk as well as taking opportunity. The fourth IPCC assessment report states that the vulnerability of a system is a function of (i) the degree to which the system is exposed to environmental variability and change, (ii) its sensitivity—the degree to which the system will respond to external change, and (iii) its adaptive capacity—the ability to adjust and take opportunities. Individuals involved in the forestry sector should be a relevant example of the local level discussed by Smit and Wandel (2006). These individuals would be sensitive to climate change since biological systems are exposed to and are directly dependent on climate. Climate scenarios for Sweden for the 21st century indicate that the changes in climate will affect forest ecosystems (e.g. Rummukainen et al., 2004; Sonesson et al., 2004; Bergh and Blennow, 2007). Furthermore according to Schneider et al. (2007), for biological and geophysical systems, the adaptation potential is much less than in social or market systems. The need for early action to adapt would consequently be particularly large for those directly dependent on these systems. This is particularly the case for the forestry sector where the time period between planting and extracting operates over multiple decades. The forest provides owners with diverse services such as timber production and cultural identity. Consequently, while only on average 12% of the income of the Swedish private forest owner household comes from forestry (Mattsson et al., 2003), other services may also be at stake while concurrently new opportunities may arise. In this paper, we aimed to test the explanatory power of the recent account of the theory of adaptation to climate change made by Smit and Wandel (2006), whereby local adaptations to climate change are seen as mainly constrained by the broader economic– social–political arrangements without explicit account to beliefs in climate change or restrictions by cognitive factors. Specifically, the two following hypotheses were tested: 1. Adaptive action to climate change taken by an individual who is exposed to and sensitive to climate change is not influenced to a considerable degree by their strength of belief in climate change. An auxiliary hypothesis is that Swedish private individual forest owners are exposed to and sensitive to climate change. An empirical consequence would be that the extent to which Swedish private individual forest owners adapt their forest management to climate change is more or less independent of the strength of their personal belief in climate change. 2. Adaptive action to climate change taken by an individual who is exposed to and sensitive to climate change is not influenced to a considerable degree by their strength of belief in an adaptive capacity. An auxiliary hypothesis is that Swedish private individual forest owners are exposed to and sensitive to climate change. An empirical consequence of this would be that lack of
101
adaptation among Swedish private individual forest owners can be satisfactorily explained without reference to their lack of belief in or uncertainty about ways to adapt. The tests were based on responses from a questionnaire sent to 1950 Swedish small-scale forest owners in 2004. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Swedish forestry Forestry is vital component of the Swedish national economy. In the Swedish Forestry Act, there are two equally prioritised goals for forest management; sustained production of timber and wood, and the maintained biodiversity (in Swedish Forest Agency, 2003). Although the Swedish forests are considered to be a national resource, 51% of the Swedish productive forest land is owned by individual forest owners (Swedish Forest Agency, 2004). The management policy is thus shaped by the interplay between welfare economic interests and the interests of private owners. In a study of the management of uncertainty and risk in Swedish forestry, Blennow (2008) concluded that uncertainty and risk in general were not actively managed for during policy formation. 2.2. Questionnaire A questionnaire was sent in April 2004 to owners of small forest holdings, each holding covering a forest acreage corresponding to a taxation value of at least 11,000 EUR in 2003 (Table 1). This questionnaire was sent to 1950 forest owners sampled randomly by the National Statistics Office of Sweden among contact persons in the Swedish forest data register. Sampling was conducted in three Swedish regions: the northern counties of Va¨sterbottens la¨n and Va¨sternorrlands la¨n, the southern counties of Kronobergs la¨n, Jo¨nko¨pings la¨n, and Kalmar la¨n, and the southernmost region including the counties of Hallands la¨n, Blekinge la¨n, and Ska˚ne (Fig. 1). In the northern region, the threshold minimum taxation value of 11,000 EUR corresponded to approximately 20 ha of productive forest land, and in the two southern regions this
Table 1 Questions collected in mail survey in 2004 among Swedish private individual forest owners and used in this study. Question
Options presented to the respondents
1. Do you believe that the climate is changing to such an extent that it will substantially affect the forest?
No, definitely not No, scarcely Do not know Yes, perhaps Yes, certainly
2. Has the climate change debate affected your forest management?
Yes No
3. Why has not the climate change debate affected your forest management?a
I do not believe that the climate is changing Too much uncertainty as to whether the climate is changing I have not thought about climate change and my own forest management Too much uncertainty as to what management measures reduce negative consequences of climate change I do not know how to modify my forest management
a The question was only posed to respondents who had answered no on question no. 2.
102
K. Blennow, J. Persson / Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 100–104
Swedish Forest Agency and the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences for analysing consequences of a major wind damage event in southern Sweden in January 2005 (Blennow, 2006; Blennow and Eriksson, 2006a,b). 3. Results Nineteen percent of respondents (204/1079) stated that they had adapted their forest management in response to the debate on climate change and 75% of respondents (814/1079) stated that they believed that the climate was changing to an extent that would affect the forest (Table 2). There was a significant and positive association between forest owners who had adapted their forest management to climate change and their strength of belief in climate change (p < 0.0001). Among forest owners who stated they had not adapted their forest management in response to the debate on climate change, there was a significant association between the individual’s personal belief in climate change and their motivation for not adapting (p < 0.0001) (Table 3). Forest owners who had not adapted, even though they believed in climate change, were motivated by a perceived lack of adaptive capacity. This perception was based on an acknowledged lack of understanding of how they could adapt, or a lack of belief in ways of how to adapt. 23% (174/ 760) of those who had not adapted had not thought about adapting their forest management. 4. Discussion
Fig. 1. Map of Sweden showing three regions within which sampling of private individual forest owners was made for a mail-survey in 2004.
taxation value corresponded to approximately 5 ha of productive forest land, based on data by the Swedish Forest Agency (2004). Fifty-seven percent of the forest owners responded. Contingency table X2-tests were used to test for differences between groups of responses based on adaptors/non-adaptors, strength of belief in climate change, and motivations for not having adapted. Preliminary results have been presented in reports from the project ‘‘Stormanalys’’. ‘‘Stormanalys’’ was a joint project between the
There are two significant results from this study. First, we found that adaptation to climate change by an individual who is exposed to and sensitive to climate change is influenced to a considerable degree by his or her strength of belief in climate change. Second, also the individual’s strength of belief in an adaptive capacity to a considerable degree influenced adaptation. This challenges a recent and influential account of the theory of adaptation by which adaptation at the local scale is restricted mainly by economic-social–political factors. We find that both the strength of belief in climate change and in an adaptive capacity are significant drivers of a realised adaptive capacity. Although opinion polls made during recent years have indicated widespread and strong belief in global climate change among citizens in various countries (e.g. World Public Opinion, 2006), there was a significant and positive association between the forest owners who had adapted their forest management to climate change and their strength of belief in climate change (Table 2). According to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2005) there was a trend of increasing fraction of respondents among Swedish citizens for the years 2002–2005 who answered ‘‘yes certainly’’ or ‘‘yes perhaps’’ to the question ‘‘Do you believe that an enhanced greenhouse effect will, now or in the future, affect us who live in Sweden?’’ In 2004 this fraction amounted to 95%, of which the contribution from those who
Table 2 Frequencies for those who had and had not adapted the forest management by stated strength of belief in climate change. Response with maximum fraction per management alternative in bold. Has the climate change debate affected your forest management?
Do you believe that the climate is changing to such an extent that it will substantially affect the forest? No, definitely not (%), n = 14
No, scarcely (%), n = 168
Do not know (%), n = 83
Yes, perhaps (%), n = 516
Yes, certainly (%), n = 298
Yes (n = 204) No (n = 875)
0 100
1 99
2 98
14 86
44 56
Total (n = 1079)
100
100
100
100
100
K. Blennow, J. Persson / Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 100–104
103
Table 3 Frequencies for different motivations for not having adapted forest management by stated strength of belief in climate change. Response with maximum fraction per alternative motivation in bold. Answers from 26 respondents who had ticked two or more alternative motivations were omitted. Why has not the climate change debate affected your forest management?
I do not believe that the climate is changing (n = 71) Too much uncertainty as to whether the climate is changing (n = 175) I have not thought about climate change and my own forest management (n = 174) Too much uncertainty as to what management measures reduce negative consequences of climate change (n = 153) I don’t know how to modify my forest management (n = 187) Total (n = 760)
Do you believe that the climate is changing to such an extent that it will substantially affect the forest? No, definitely not (%), n = 13
No, scarcely (%), n = 147
Do not know (%), n = 65
Yes, perhaps (%), n = 388
Yes, certainly (%), n = 147
77 15
22 33
11 18
6 25
0 10
8
22
35
23
18
0
11
14
19
36
0
12
22
26
36
100
100
100
100
100
answered ‘‘yes certainly’’ was 82%. Thus, the vast majority of Swedish citizens in 2004 appear to believe in climate change and to expect that these changes will affect those who live in Sweden. In our study only 28% of the Swedish private individual forest owners answered ‘‘yes certainly’’ to the question about belief in climate change (Table 2). Although our question was not posed in exactly the same way as the one posed by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the results indicated that belief in climate change in the year 2004 differed between groups of the Swedish society. Furthermore, the results of opinion polls are not transferable between groups of respondents even if the individuals share a common nationality. Measures taken to adapt to climate change among Swedish private individual forest owners can thus be expected to be lower compared to within other exposed and sensitive sectors where the belief in climate change was stronger. Based on our results (Table 2), and in agreement with Weber (1997), we argue that the process of adaptation to climate change cannot be understood by economic–social–political arrangements alone: To be able to explain adaptation at the local level, the factor strength of belief in climate change needs to be taken into account. The strength of belief in an adaptive capacity was shown to be crucial for adaptation among individuals who are exposed to and sensitive to climate change. Among the private individual forest owners who had not adapted their forest management in response to the debate on climate change, there was a significant association between the respondents’ beliefs in climate change and why they had not adapted (Table 3). Believers in climate change who had not adapted perceived lack of adaptive capacity. This perception was based on an acknowledged lack of understanding of how they could adapt, or a lack of belief in ways of how to adapt. Some had not thought about adapting their forest management. Previous researchers have identified that the availability of options to adapt is a prerequisite for adaptation to take place (cf. Patt and Gwata, 2002), and Grothmann and Patt (2005) claim that perceived adaptive capacity and perceived probability of an adverse event explain more of the variation between those taking action and not taking action to adapt to climate change than do economic, social, and political factors. They infer support for this claim from two studies. Both studies, however, rest on the assumption that the factors which determine the adaptation to longer-term climate change are the same that influence adaptations to extreme events and climate variability. Although the previous study has concluded that cognitive factors are needed for explaining adaptation to climate change, we suggest that also the uncertainty in relation to the occurrence of climate change described by Heath and Gifford (2006), and hence the element of epistemic risk taking discussed in Sahlin and Persson (1994), need to be taken into account when testing the
significance of cognitive factors in explaining adaptation to climate change. Our article adds a test of the significance of the cognitive factor strength of belief in adaptive capacity to climate change to what has been examined before. In a questionnaire to south Swedish private individual forest owners in 1999, 11% stated that they had adapted their forest management in response to climate change (Blennow and Sallna¨s, 2002). In our study made in three regions across Sweden in 2004, 19% stated that they had adapted their forest management (Table 2). This indicates that an increasing number of private individual forest owners adapted to climate change between 1999 and 2004, unless such differences are accounted for by variation in adaptation across Sweden. If there is a trend, it could possibly be explained by an increase in the strength of belief in climate change among private individual forest owners, similar to the increase observed by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2005) among Swedish citizens in general. It could also be explained by an improvement in the perceived adaptive capacity of private individual forest owners. Even in 2004 when this study was made, there was only limited information available from government sources on how to adapt forest management in Sweden to climate change. The fraction that had taken action to adapt in 2004 (19%) was still lower than the fraction that answered ‘‘yes certainly’’ to the question about belief in climate change (28%) (Table 2). The Swedish Forest Agency had decided on a policy in 2003 but the first information leaflet to practical forestry from the agency was not printed until 2005 (Swedish Forest Agency, 2005). 2005 was also the year in which the first scientific study was published on how to combine different model results sufficiently to confidently suggest possible adaptation strategies for different sectors in Europe (Schro¨ter et al., 2005). Consequently those who had adapted their forest management in 1999, as well as in 2004, were pioneers acting with limited informational support from official sources. In a study among Canadian citizens, whether or not to believe in global climate change was associated with their personal ethics (Heath and Gifford, 2006). A stronger belief in global climate change was associated with greater ecocentrism (as opposed to antropocentrism), but also with higher perceived knowledge and lower apathy towards environmental issues. Apathy towards environmental issues was the strongest predictor of belief in global climate change and related behavioural intentions. Whether ethical approaches held by Swedish citizens in general, or Swedish private individual forest owners in particular, can explain variation in belief in climate change among Swedish citizens remains to be explored. So does also the extent to which the perceived adaptive capacity can be improved by information on how to adapt. But if the intent is to facilitate adaptation and if
104
K. Blennow, J. Persson / Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 100–104
there is an option between efforts to improve climate change scenarios and efforts to reduce uncertainty on how to adapt, our results indicate that at least initially the latter will result in more adaptation (cf. Patt, 2007). This is because most respondents to some extent believed in climate change already and the motif for not having adapted among believers of climate change most often was related to uncertainty and lack of knowledge on how to adapt rather than to uncertainty about the climate change per se (Table 3). In conclusion, beliefs about climate change and adaptive capacities were found to be crucial factors for explaining observed differences in adaptation among Swedish private individual forest owners. Acknowledgements Associate professor Mattias Boman, Professors Leif Mattson and Ola Sallna¨s, MSc Desire´e Johansson and MSc Mikaela Petersson are acknowledged for contributing to the planning and pursuing the questionnaire survey in 2004, and Dr Adam Felton is acknowledged for helpful comments on the manuscript and for English grammar corrections. All are at the Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences The work was financed by the insurance company La¨nsfo¨rsa¨kringar and Mistra through the research programme SUFOR. References Adger, W.N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M.M.Q., Conde, C., O’Brien, K., Pulhin, J., Pulwarty, R., Smit, B., Takahashi, K., 2007. Assessment of adaptation practices, options constraints and capacity. In: Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E. (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, UK, pp. 717–743. Bergh, J., Blennow, K. (Eds.), Andersson, M., Olofsson, E., Nilsson, U., Sallna¨s, O., Karlsson, M., 2007. Effekter av ett fo¨ra¨ndrat klimat pa˚ skogen och implikationer fo¨r skogsbruket. Appendix B19 to ‘‘Sverige info¨r klimatfo¨ra¨ndringarna – hot och mo¨jligheter’’ (in Swedish). Slutbeta¨nkande av Klimat-och Sa˚rbarhetsutredningen, SOU, pp. 60.. Blennow, K., 2006. Riskmedvetenhet och riskhantering. In: Stormen 2005 – en skoglig analys (in Swedish) Meddelande Nr 1. Swedish Forest Agency, Jo¨nko¨ping. pp. 119–137. . Blennow, K, 2008. Risk management in Swedish forestry—policy formation and fulfilment of goals. Journal of Risk Research 11, 237–254. Blennow, K., Sallna¨s, O., 2002. Risk perception among non-industrial private forest owners. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 17, 472–479. Blennow, K., Eriksson, H., 2006a. Klimatfo¨ra¨ndringen och skogsbruket. In: Stormen 2005 – en skoglig analys (in Swedish). Meddelande Nr 1 Swedish Forest Agency, Jo¨nko¨ping, pp. 112–119. . Blennow, K., Eriksson, H., 2006b. Riskhantering i skogsbruket (in Swedish). Rapport No. 14. Swedish Forest Agency: Jo¨nko¨ping. 52 pp. . Etkin, D., Ho, E., 2007. Climate change: perceptions and discourses of risk. Journal of Risk Research 5, 623–641. Grothmann, T., Patt, A., 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environmental Change 15, 199–213.
Grundmann, R., 2007. Climate change and knowledge politics. Environmental Politics 16, 414–432. Heath, Y., Gifford, R., 2006. Free-market ideology and environmental degradation: the case of belief in global climate change. Environment and Behaviour 38, 48–71. IPCC, 2007. Summary for policymakers. In: Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., Miller, H.L. (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Mattsson, L., Boman, M., Kindstrand, C., 2003. Privata¨gd skog: va¨rden, visioner och forskningsbehov (in Swedish). Bratta˚sstiftelsen and SUFOR. ISBN 91-5766622-9. Oppenheimer, M., Todorov, A., 2006. Global warming: the psychology of long-term risk. Climatic Change 77, 1–6. Patt, A.G., Gwata, C., 2002. Effective seasonal climate forecast applications: examining constraints for subsistence farmers in Zimbabwe. Global Environmental Change 12, 185–195. Patt, A.G., 2007. Assessing model-based and conflict-based uncertainty. Global Environmental Change 17, 37–46. Persson, J., 2007. Risker i kunskapens mellanrum (in Swedish). Nora, Nya Doxa. Rummukainen, M., Bergstro¨m, S., Persson, G., Rodhe, J., Tjernstro¨m, M., 2004. The Swedish Regional Climate Modelling Programme, SWECLIM: a review. AMBIO 33, 176–182. Sahlin, N.-E., Persson, J., 1994. Epistemic risk: the significance of knowing what one does not know. In: Brehmer, Sahlin, (Eds.), Future Risks and Risk Management. Technology, Risk, and Society, 9. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 37–62. Schneider, S.H., Semenov, Patwardhan, A., Burton, I., Magadza, C.H.D., Oppenheimer, M., Pittock, A.B., Rahman, A., Smith, J.B., Suarez, A., Yamin, F., 2007. Assessing key vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change. In: Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E. (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, UK, pp. 779–810. Schro¨ter, D., Cramer, W., Leemans, R., Prentice, I.C., Arau´jo, M.B., Arnell, N.W., Bondeau, A., Bugmann, H., Carter, T.R., Gracia, C.A., de la Vega-Leinert, A.C., Erhard, M., Ewert, F., Glendining, M., House, J.I., Kankaanpa¨a¨, S., Klein, R.J.T., Lavorel, S., Lindner, M., Metzger, M.J., Meyer, J., Mitchell, T.D., Reginster, I., Rounsevell, M., Sabate´, S., Sitch, S., Smith, B., Smith, J., Smith, P., Sykes, M.T., Thonicke, K., Thuiller, W., Tuck, G., Zaehle, S., Zierl, B., 2005. Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science 310, 1333–1337. Smit, B., Burton, I., Klein, R.J.T., Wandel, J., 2000. An anatomy of climate change and variability. Climatic Change 45, 223–251. Smit, B., Wandel, J., 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16, 282–292. Sonesson, J. (Ed.), Bergh, J., Bjo¨rkman, C., Blennow, K., Eriksson, H., Linder, S., Rose´n, K., Rummukainen, M., Stenlid, J., 2004. Climate change and forestry in Sweden— a literature review. Kungliga Skogs-och Lantbruksakademiens Tidskrift 143, pp. 1–42.. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. Allma¨nhetens kunskaper och attityder till va¨xthuseffekten (in Swedish), 21 pp. ISBN 91-620-8218-3 (retrieved 22.11.07).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Global Environmental Change journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha
Climate change: Motivation for taking measure to adapt Kristina Blennow a,*, Johannes Persson b a b
Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 49, SE-230 53 Alnarp, Sweden Department of Philosophy, Lund University, Kungshuset, Lundaga˚rd, SE-222 22 Lund, Sweden
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history: Received 14 April 2008 Received in revised form 1 September 2008 Accepted 20 October 2008
We tested two consequences of a currently influential theory based on the notion of seeing adaptations to climate change as local adjustments to deal with changing conditions within the constraints of the broader economic–social–political arrangements. The notion leaves no explicit role for the strength of personal beliefs in climate change and adaptive capacity. The consequences were: (i) adaptive action to climate change taken by an individual who is exposed to and sensitive to climate change is not influenced to a considerable degree by their strength of belief in climate change and (ii) adaptive action to climate change taken by an individual who is exposed to and sensitive to climate change is not influenced to a considerable degree by their strength of belief in an adaptive capacity. Data from a 2004 questionnaire of 1950 Swedish private individual forest owners, who were assumed exposed to and sensitive to climate change, were used. Strength of belief in climate change and adaptive capacities were found to be crucial factors for explaining observed differences in adaptation among Swedish forest owners. ß 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Adaptation Belief Adaptive capacity Epistemic risk
1. Introduction There is increasing evidence that climate change is occurring. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fourth assessment report there is ‘‘very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming’’ (IPCC, 2007, p. 3). Climate change has developed into an issue of widespread and major concern where efforts for mitigation and adaptation to changing conditions have been strongly recommended by the IPCC (2007) and put high on the political agendas of major governmental bodies, e.g. the EU (Grundmann, 2007). However, according to Heath and Gifford (2006) at least three characteristics of climate change make it different from other, better understood natural disasters or hazards (cf. Etkin and Ho, 2007). First, there is uncertainty as to whether climate change is actually occurring. Second, the gradual nature of climate change makes it harder to notice. Third, the causes of climate change remain uncertain and controversial. In their own right, these characteristics motivate prima facie doubt that any model of adaptation to climate change that does not take cognitive variables into account can be satisfactory. It is part of common wisdom that beliefs and desires influence action. For instance, in 1997 Weber found significant correlations between 48 North American farmers’
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 40 415230; fax: +46 40 462325. E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Blennow). 0959-3780/$ – see front matter ß 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.003
strength of belief in climate change and adaptive measures taken by them to reduce the negative consequences of climate change. Any theory of adaptation that does not make direct use of cognitive variables must rely on assumptions that beliefs will nevertheless be appropriately correlated with the non-cognitive variables explaining adaptive measures in the model. The characteristics claimed by Heath and Gifford (2006) make this assumption somewhat implausible. This is because lack of robust knowledge leads to problems when trying to accurately monitor the risks involved (cf. Sahlin and Persson, 1994; Persson, 2007) and allows for considerable variation in strength of belief in climate change among individuals. The psychological and cognitive aspects of adaptation to climate change are receiving increasing attention (cf. overviews by Oppenheimer and Todorov, 2006; Adger et al., 2007). For instance, Grothmann and Patt (2005) argue that socio-cognitive variables ought to be included in models of adaptation and adaptive capacity. Their case studies build on adaptation to welldefined events such as farmers’ adaptation to risk of drought in Zimbabwe and residents’ proactive adaptation to the risk of river flooding. Their model adds to the preconceived implausibility of models of adaptation to climate change only in terms of objective, physical, institutional or economic constraints. It can, however, only indirectly shed light on the importance of cognitive aspects for explaining adaptation to a global, long-term phenomenon, such as climate change. In particular, since Weber’s findings in 1997 little appears to have been done on the link between strength of belief in, and
K. Blennow, J. Persson / Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 100–104
adaptation to climate change. Only rarely is it mentioned in general accounts of the theory of adaptation to climate change that belief in climate change is a prerequisite to adaptation. For example, Smit et al. (2000, p. 225) describe adaptation as ‘‘adjustments in ecological-socio-economic systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli, their effects or impacts’’. Interestingly, in more recent accounts of adaptation to climate change the reference to expectation or belief in change is often not made at all. For example, in their review Smit and Wandel (2006, p. 289) conclude that adaptations to climate change ‘‘can be considered as local or community-based adjustments to deal with changing conditions within the constraints of the broader economic–social– political arrangements’’. According to the fourth IPCC assessment report (Adger et al., 2007), adaptation to climate change takes place through adjustments to reduce vulnerability or to enhance resilience. Hence, adaptation includes taking action to reduce risk as well as taking opportunity. The fourth IPCC assessment report states that the vulnerability of a system is a function of (i) the degree to which the system is exposed to environmental variability and change, (ii) its sensitivity—the degree to which the system will respond to external change, and (iii) its adaptive capacity—the ability to adjust and take opportunities. Individuals involved in the forestry sector should be a relevant example of the local level discussed by Smit and Wandel (2006). These individuals would be sensitive to climate change since biological systems are exposed to and are directly dependent on climate. Climate scenarios for Sweden for the 21st century indicate that the changes in climate will affect forest ecosystems (e.g. Rummukainen et al., 2004; Sonesson et al., 2004; Bergh and Blennow, 2007). Furthermore according to Schneider et al. (2007), for biological and geophysical systems, the adaptation potential is much less than in social or market systems. The need for early action to adapt would consequently be particularly large for those directly dependent on these systems. This is particularly the case for the forestry sector where the time period between planting and extracting operates over multiple decades. The forest provides owners with diverse services such as timber production and cultural identity. Consequently, while only on average 12% of the income of the Swedish private forest owner household comes from forestry (Mattsson et al., 2003), other services may also be at stake while concurrently new opportunities may arise. In this paper, we aimed to test the explanatory power of the recent account of the theory of adaptation to climate change made by Smit and Wandel (2006), whereby local adaptations to climate change are seen as mainly constrained by the broader economic– social–political arrangements without explicit account to beliefs in climate change or restrictions by cognitive factors. Specifically, the two following hypotheses were tested: 1. Adaptive action to climate change taken by an individual who is exposed to and sensitive to climate change is not influenced to a considerable degree by their strength of belief in climate change. An auxiliary hypothesis is that Swedish private individual forest owners are exposed to and sensitive to climate change. An empirical consequence would be that the extent to which Swedish private individual forest owners adapt their forest management to climate change is more or less independent of the strength of their personal belief in climate change. 2. Adaptive action to climate change taken by an individual who is exposed to and sensitive to climate change is not influenced to a considerable degree by their strength of belief in an adaptive capacity. An auxiliary hypothesis is that Swedish private individual forest owners are exposed to and sensitive to climate change. An empirical consequence of this would be that lack of
101
adaptation among Swedish private individual forest owners can be satisfactorily explained without reference to their lack of belief in or uncertainty about ways to adapt. The tests were based on responses from a questionnaire sent to 1950 Swedish small-scale forest owners in 2004. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Swedish forestry Forestry is vital component of the Swedish national economy. In the Swedish Forestry Act, there are two equally prioritised goals for forest management; sustained production of timber and wood, and the maintained biodiversity (in Swedish Forest Agency, 2003). Although the Swedish forests are considered to be a national resource, 51% of the Swedish productive forest land is owned by individual forest owners (Swedish Forest Agency, 2004). The management policy is thus shaped by the interplay between welfare economic interests and the interests of private owners. In a study of the management of uncertainty and risk in Swedish forestry, Blennow (2008) concluded that uncertainty and risk in general were not actively managed for during policy formation. 2.2. Questionnaire A questionnaire was sent in April 2004 to owners of small forest holdings, each holding covering a forest acreage corresponding to a taxation value of at least 11,000 EUR in 2003 (Table 1). This questionnaire was sent to 1950 forest owners sampled randomly by the National Statistics Office of Sweden among contact persons in the Swedish forest data register. Sampling was conducted in three Swedish regions: the northern counties of Va¨sterbottens la¨n and Va¨sternorrlands la¨n, the southern counties of Kronobergs la¨n, Jo¨nko¨pings la¨n, and Kalmar la¨n, and the southernmost region including the counties of Hallands la¨n, Blekinge la¨n, and Ska˚ne (Fig. 1). In the northern region, the threshold minimum taxation value of 11,000 EUR corresponded to approximately 20 ha of productive forest land, and in the two southern regions this
Table 1 Questions collected in mail survey in 2004 among Swedish private individual forest owners and used in this study. Question
Options presented to the respondents
1. Do you believe that the climate is changing to such an extent that it will substantially affect the forest?
No, definitely not No, scarcely Do not know Yes, perhaps Yes, certainly
2. Has the climate change debate affected your forest management?
Yes No
3. Why has not the climate change debate affected your forest management?a
I do not believe that the climate is changing Too much uncertainty as to whether the climate is changing I have not thought about climate change and my own forest management Too much uncertainty as to what management measures reduce negative consequences of climate change I do not know how to modify my forest management
a The question was only posed to respondents who had answered no on question no. 2.
102
K. Blennow, J. Persson / Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 100–104
Swedish Forest Agency and the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences for analysing consequences of a major wind damage event in southern Sweden in January 2005 (Blennow, 2006; Blennow and Eriksson, 2006a,b). 3. Results Nineteen percent of respondents (204/1079) stated that they had adapted their forest management in response to the debate on climate change and 75% of respondents (814/1079) stated that they believed that the climate was changing to an extent that would affect the forest (Table 2). There was a significant and positive association between forest owners who had adapted their forest management to climate change and their strength of belief in climate change (p < 0.0001). Among forest owners who stated they had not adapted their forest management in response to the debate on climate change, there was a significant association between the individual’s personal belief in climate change and their motivation for not adapting (p < 0.0001) (Table 3). Forest owners who had not adapted, even though they believed in climate change, were motivated by a perceived lack of adaptive capacity. This perception was based on an acknowledged lack of understanding of how they could adapt, or a lack of belief in ways of how to adapt. 23% (174/ 760) of those who had not adapted had not thought about adapting their forest management. 4. Discussion
Fig. 1. Map of Sweden showing three regions within which sampling of private individual forest owners was made for a mail-survey in 2004.
taxation value corresponded to approximately 5 ha of productive forest land, based on data by the Swedish Forest Agency (2004). Fifty-seven percent of the forest owners responded. Contingency table X2-tests were used to test for differences between groups of responses based on adaptors/non-adaptors, strength of belief in climate change, and motivations for not having adapted. Preliminary results have been presented in reports from the project ‘‘Stormanalys’’. ‘‘Stormanalys’’ was a joint project between the
There are two significant results from this study. First, we found that adaptation to climate change by an individual who is exposed to and sensitive to climate change is influenced to a considerable degree by his or her strength of belief in climate change. Second, also the individual’s strength of belief in an adaptive capacity to a considerable degree influenced adaptation. This challenges a recent and influential account of the theory of adaptation by which adaptation at the local scale is restricted mainly by economic-social–political factors. We find that both the strength of belief in climate change and in an adaptive capacity are significant drivers of a realised adaptive capacity. Although opinion polls made during recent years have indicated widespread and strong belief in global climate change among citizens in various countries (e.g. World Public Opinion, 2006), there was a significant and positive association between the forest owners who had adapted their forest management to climate change and their strength of belief in climate change (Table 2). According to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2005) there was a trend of increasing fraction of respondents among Swedish citizens for the years 2002–2005 who answered ‘‘yes certainly’’ or ‘‘yes perhaps’’ to the question ‘‘Do you believe that an enhanced greenhouse effect will, now or in the future, affect us who live in Sweden?’’ In 2004 this fraction amounted to 95%, of which the contribution from those who
Table 2 Frequencies for those who had and had not adapted the forest management by stated strength of belief in climate change. Response with maximum fraction per management alternative in bold. Has the climate change debate affected your forest management?
Do you believe that the climate is changing to such an extent that it will substantially affect the forest? No, definitely not (%), n = 14
No, scarcely (%), n = 168
Do not know (%), n = 83
Yes, perhaps (%), n = 516
Yes, certainly (%), n = 298
Yes (n = 204) No (n = 875)
0 100
1 99
2 98
14 86
44 56
Total (n = 1079)
100
100
100
100
100
K. Blennow, J. Persson / Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 100–104
103
Table 3 Frequencies for different motivations for not having adapted forest management by stated strength of belief in climate change. Response with maximum fraction per alternative motivation in bold. Answers from 26 respondents who had ticked two or more alternative motivations were omitted. Why has not the climate change debate affected your forest management?
I do not believe that the climate is changing (n = 71) Too much uncertainty as to whether the climate is changing (n = 175) I have not thought about climate change and my own forest management (n = 174) Too much uncertainty as to what management measures reduce negative consequences of climate change (n = 153) I don’t know how to modify my forest management (n = 187) Total (n = 760)
Do you believe that the climate is changing to such an extent that it will substantially affect the forest? No, definitely not (%), n = 13
No, scarcely (%), n = 147
Do not know (%), n = 65
Yes, perhaps (%), n = 388
Yes, certainly (%), n = 147
77 15
22 33
11 18
6 25
0 10
8
22
35
23
18
0
11
14
19
36
0
12
22
26
36
100
100
100
100
100
answered ‘‘yes certainly’’ was 82%. Thus, the vast majority of Swedish citizens in 2004 appear to believe in climate change and to expect that these changes will affect those who live in Sweden. In our study only 28% of the Swedish private individual forest owners answered ‘‘yes certainly’’ to the question about belief in climate change (Table 2). Although our question was not posed in exactly the same way as the one posed by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the results indicated that belief in climate change in the year 2004 differed between groups of the Swedish society. Furthermore, the results of opinion polls are not transferable between groups of respondents even if the individuals share a common nationality. Measures taken to adapt to climate change among Swedish private individual forest owners can thus be expected to be lower compared to within other exposed and sensitive sectors where the belief in climate change was stronger. Based on our results (Table 2), and in agreement with Weber (1997), we argue that the process of adaptation to climate change cannot be understood by economic–social–political arrangements alone: To be able to explain adaptation at the local level, the factor strength of belief in climate change needs to be taken into account. The strength of belief in an adaptive capacity was shown to be crucial for adaptation among individuals who are exposed to and sensitive to climate change. Among the private individual forest owners who had not adapted their forest management in response to the debate on climate change, there was a significant association between the respondents’ beliefs in climate change and why they had not adapted (Table 3). Believers in climate change who had not adapted perceived lack of adaptive capacity. This perception was based on an acknowledged lack of understanding of how they could adapt, or a lack of belief in ways of how to adapt. Some had not thought about adapting their forest management. Previous researchers have identified that the availability of options to adapt is a prerequisite for adaptation to take place (cf. Patt and Gwata, 2002), and Grothmann and Patt (2005) claim that perceived adaptive capacity and perceived probability of an adverse event explain more of the variation between those taking action and not taking action to adapt to climate change than do economic, social, and political factors. They infer support for this claim from two studies. Both studies, however, rest on the assumption that the factors which determine the adaptation to longer-term climate change are the same that influence adaptations to extreme events and climate variability. Although the previous study has concluded that cognitive factors are needed for explaining adaptation to climate change, we suggest that also the uncertainty in relation to the occurrence of climate change described by Heath and Gifford (2006), and hence the element of epistemic risk taking discussed in Sahlin and Persson (1994), need to be taken into account when testing the
significance of cognitive factors in explaining adaptation to climate change. Our article adds a test of the significance of the cognitive factor strength of belief in adaptive capacity to climate change to what has been examined before. In a questionnaire to south Swedish private individual forest owners in 1999, 11% stated that they had adapted their forest management in response to climate change (Blennow and Sallna¨s, 2002). In our study made in three regions across Sweden in 2004, 19% stated that they had adapted their forest management (Table 2). This indicates that an increasing number of private individual forest owners adapted to climate change between 1999 and 2004, unless such differences are accounted for by variation in adaptation across Sweden. If there is a trend, it could possibly be explained by an increase in the strength of belief in climate change among private individual forest owners, similar to the increase observed by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2005) among Swedish citizens in general. It could also be explained by an improvement in the perceived adaptive capacity of private individual forest owners. Even in 2004 when this study was made, there was only limited information available from government sources on how to adapt forest management in Sweden to climate change. The fraction that had taken action to adapt in 2004 (19%) was still lower than the fraction that answered ‘‘yes certainly’’ to the question about belief in climate change (28%) (Table 2). The Swedish Forest Agency had decided on a policy in 2003 but the first information leaflet to practical forestry from the agency was not printed until 2005 (Swedish Forest Agency, 2005). 2005 was also the year in which the first scientific study was published on how to combine different model results sufficiently to confidently suggest possible adaptation strategies for different sectors in Europe (Schro¨ter et al., 2005). Consequently those who had adapted their forest management in 1999, as well as in 2004, were pioneers acting with limited informational support from official sources. In a study among Canadian citizens, whether or not to believe in global climate change was associated with their personal ethics (Heath and Gifford, 2006). A stronger belief in global climate change was associated with greater ecocentrism (as opposed to antropocentrism), but also with higher perceived knowledge and lower apathy towards environmental issues. Apathy towards environmental issues was the strongest predictor of belief in global climate change and related behavioural intentions. Whether ethical approaches held by Swedish citizens in general, or Swedish private individual forest owners in particular, can explain variation in belief in climate change among Swedish citizens remains to be explored. So does also the extent to which the perceived adaptive capacity can be improved by information on how to adapt. But if the intent is to facilitate adaptation and if
104
K. Blennow, J. Persson / Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 100–104
there is an option between efforts to improve climate change scenarios and efforts to reduce uncertainty on how to adapt, our results indicate that at least initially the latter will result in more adaptation (cf. Patt, 2007). This is because most respondents to some extent believed in climate change already and the motif for not having adapted among believers of climate change most often was related to uncertainty and lack of knowledge on how to adapt rather than to uncertainty about the climate change per se (Table 3). In conclusion, beliefs about climate change and adaptive capacities were found to be crucial factors for explaining observed differences in adaptation among Swedish private individual forest owners. Acknowledgements Associate professor Mattias Boman, Professors Leif Mattson and Ola Sallna¨s, MSc Desire´e Johansson and MSc Mikaela Petersson are acknowledged for contributing to the planning and pursuing the questionnaire survey in 2004, and Dr Adam Felton is acknowledged for helpful comments on the manuscript and for English grammar corrections. All are at the Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences The work was financed by the insurance company La¨nsfo¨rsa¨kringar and Mistra through the research programme SUFOR. References Adger, W.N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M.M.Q., Conde, C., O’Brien, K., Pulhin, J., Pulwarty, R., Smit, B., Takahashi, K., 2007. Assessment of adaptation practices, options constraints and capacity. In: Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E. (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, UK, pp. 717–743. Bergh, J., Blennow, K. (Eds.), Andersson, M., Olofsson, E., Nilsson, U., Sallna¨s, O., Karlsson, M., 2007. Effekter av ett fo¨ra¨ndrat klimat pa˚ skogen och implikationer fo¨r skogsbruket. Appendix B19 to ‘‘Sverige info¨r klimatfo¨ra¨ndringarna – hot och mo¨jligheter’’ (in Swedish). Slutbeta¨nkande av Klimat-och Sa˚rbarhetsutredningen, SOU, pp. 60.
Grundmann, R., 2007. Climate change and knowledge politics. Environmental Politics 16, 414–432. Heath, Y., Gifford, R., 2006. Free-market ideology and environmental degradation: the case of belief in global climate change. Environment and Behaviour 38, 48–71. IPCC, 2007. Summary for policymakers. In: Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., Miller, H.L. (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Mattsson, L., Boman, M., Kindstrand, C., 2003. Privata¨gd skog: va¨rden, visioner och forskningsbehov (in Swedish). Bratta˚sstiftelsen and SUFOR. ISBN 91-5766622-9. Oppenheimer, M., Todorov, A., 2006. Global warming: the psychology of long-term risk. Climatic Change 77, 1–6. Patt, A.G., Gwata, C., 2002. Effective seasonal climate forecast applications: examining constraints for subsistence farmers in Zimbabwe. Global Environmental Change 12, 185–195. Patt, A.G., 2007. Assessing model-based and conflict-based uncertainty. Global Environmental Change 17, 37–46. Persson, J., 2007. Risker i kunskapens mellanrum (in Swedish). Nora, Nya Doxa. Rummukainen, M., Bergstro¨m, S., Persson, G., Rodhe, J., Tjernstro¨m, M., 2004. The Swedish Regional Climate Modelling Programme, SWECLIM: a review. AMBIO 33, 176–182. Sahlin, N.-E., Persson, J., 1994. Epistemic risk: the significance of knowing what one does not know. In: Brehmer, Sahlin, (Eds.), Future Risks and Risk Management. Technology, Risk, and Society, 9. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 37–62. Schneider, S.H., Semenov, Patwardhan, A., Burton, I., Magadza, C.H.D., Oppenheimer, M., Pittock, A.B., Rahman, A., Smith, J.B., Suarez, A., Yamin, F., 2007. Assessing key vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change. In: Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E. (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, UK, pp. 779–810. Schro¨ter, D., Cramer, W., Leemans, R., Prentice, I.C., Arau´jo, M.B., Arnell, N.W., Bondeau, A., Bugmann, H., Carter, T.R., Gracia, C.A., de la Vega-Leinert, A.C., Erhard, M., Ewert, F., Glendining, M., House, J.I., Kankaanpa¨a¨, S., Klein, R.J.T., Lavorel, S., Lindner, M., Metzger, M.J., Meyer, J., Mitchell, T.D., Reginster, I., Rounsevell, M., Sabate´, S., Sitch, S., Smith, B., Smith, J., Smith, P., Sykes, M.T., Thonicke, K., Thuiller, W., Tuck, G., Zaehle, S., Zierl, B., 2005. Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science 310, 1333–1337. Smit, B., Burton, I., Klein, R.J.T., Wandel, J., 2000. An anatomy of climate change and variability. Climatic Change 45, 223–251. Smit, B., Wandel, J., 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16, 282–292. Sonesson, J. (Ed.), Bergh, J., Bjo¨rkman, C., Blennow, K., Eriksson, H., Linder, S., Rose´n, K., Rummukainen, M., Stenlid, J., 2004. Climate change and forestry in Sweden— a literature review. Kungliga Skogs-och Lantbruksakademiens Tidskrift 143, pp. 1–42.