Risk perception and political leaning explain the preferences of non-industrial private landowners for alternative climate change mitigation strategies in Finnish forests

Understanding landowners' willingness to act on climate change is important for effective climate policy. This study investigates the determinants of Finnish non-industrial private forest owners' preferences for alternative climate change mitigation strategies related to forests and wood use. The study tests hypotheses concerning the role of risk perception and political leaning for the support of seven alternative strategies with varying degree of disruption to the current logic of commercial forestry in Finland, which further aligns with the temporal delay in the impact of climate change mitigation strategies that landowners are willing to accept. Based on 887 survey responses from three regions, the study finds that forest owners generally support all but one of the seven strategies: reduced harvest. Results from ordinal logistic regression models further indicate that along with socio-demographic determinants, higher perceived risk and left-wing leaning with a university degree explain support for more disruptive strategies with more immediate mitigation impact (increased conservation, reduced harvest), while lower perceived risk and right-wing leaning without a university degree tend to associate with support for the less disruptive strategies (intensified management, increased harvest), both of which arguably sideline the urgency of climate action. In the highly politicized matter of harvest levels in Finland, the study also finds that right-wing leaning may negate the effect of higher education, which otherwise predicts greater support for more disruptive strategies. Implications for policy at the climate-forest nexus are derived.