Forestry Communication and Public Perception: Insights from the Czech Republic
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Research Questions and Objectives
- What are the underlying causes of communication challenges in forestry?
- What central problem contributes to the gap between forestry professionals and the public?
- How can this problem be addressed, what goals should be set, and what methods should be employed to achieve them?
- Examine the root causes of misconceptions in forestry communication by analysing underlying factors and mechanisms.
- Define the central problem contributing to the communication gap between forestry professionals and the public, with particular attention to its origins and consequences.
- Establish a set of foundational tools, methods, and analytical approaches to address the communication gap.
- Assess public perceptions of forestry through a large-scale quantitative survey, using the findings to identify misconceptions and inform strategic communication goals.
2.2. Study Design and Rationale
2.3. CIMO Model
2.4. Problem Tree Analysis
2.5. SWOT Analysis
2.6. Confrontation TOWS Matrix & Delphi Method
- Initial Questionnaire Distribution: Experts were presented with the complete set of SWOT factors and asked to evaluate the strategic intersections in the TOWS matrix using a five-point symbolic scale (− −, −, 0, +, + +), providing qualitative commentary.
- Analysis and Feedback: The responses underwent a statistical analysis, during which modal values were calculated to determine areas of agreement and disagreement among the experts. A feedback report outlining these patterns was subsequently shared with all participants.
- Subsequent Iterative Rounds for Consensus Building: Two additional evaluation rounds were conducted to refine consensus.
- Final Analysis: Final expert ratings were consolidated, providing foundational elements essential for formulating communication goals and strategy framing (Objective C).
2.7. Quantitative Survey and Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. The CIMO Model Approach
3.2. Revealing the Central Problem Through Problem Tree Analysis
3.3. SWOT Analysis and TOWS Matrix
- S1: Positive Public Attitude to Forest
- S4: Forest Pedagogy Network
- S5: Ecological Role of Forests
- S7: Sustainability Ethos
- W2: Inconsistent Public Communication
- W3: Weak Response to Misinformation
- W5: Slow Adaptation to Societal Change
- O2: Post-Calamity Regeneration Success
- O3: Leverage High Forest Visitor Rates
- O5: Forestry’s Climate Role
- O6: Modern Technological Image
- T2: Declining Public Support
- T3: Reduced Influence in Policy
- T5: Poorly Informed Decisions and Legislation
- Coordinated messaging among stakeholders, centred around sustainability (S7) and enhanced by a modern, innovation-focused image (O6). It should also involve proactive responses to misinformation through digital tools, swift messaging, and greater transparency (W3).
- More substantial investment in public education and youth outreach through the forest pedagogy network (S4), focusing on engaging audiences via social networks.
- Framing forestry’s climate relevance (O5) and regeneration successes (O2) in a relatable way to foster public trust and support.
3.4. Quantitative Survey Findings
4. Discussion
4.1. Interpretation of Strategic Models and Analytical Results
4.2. Communication Goals and Strategic Positioning
- Supporters (~18%): Reinforcing this segment requires consistent, transparent communication that avoids controversy or mixed messages.
- The Persuadable Middle (~41%): This group sees forestry as important but is uncertain about its effectiveness. To engage them, communication must focus on explaining foresters’ work, showcasing long-term planning, and emphasising ecological responsibility.
- Sceptics (Helpless/Negative View, ~41%): Changing perceptions here is more challenging but not impossible. Approaches should include storytelling, the use of relatable personalities, and emotionally resonant campaigns.
- Central coordination platform—A unifying institutional mechanism is needed to synchronise communication across diverse forestry actors. Such a platform would ensure messaging continuity despite political leadership or staffing changes, providing a stable backbone for long-term engagement. Institutional resilience stems from effective internal coordination [55].
- Audience-specific strategies—Tailored communication is especially vital for under-engaged groups such as youth and urban populations. Strategies should include digital storytelling, influencer engagement, and participatory formats to foster emotional connection and perceived relevance. Jenkins et al. [56] provide compelling evidence on the role of “spreadable media”, which leverages participatory content and influencer networks to bridge the gap between institutional messaging and audience engagement.
- Feedback loops—Public perception must be continuously monitored using sentiment analysis, surveys, and structured stakeholder dialogue. These insights should drive real-time strategy adjustments, ensuring both responsiveness and accountability. Heath and Johansen [30] highlight that feedback is essential for iterative strategic improvement, reinforcing the value of evidence-based decision-making in public relations.
- Long-term commitment—Research in both public sector reform and corporate communication highlights that sustained investment and ongoing engagement are essential for successful repositioning [57,58]. Strategic transformation cannot be accomplished through ad hoc initiatives; it demands consistent leadership, enduring institutional commitment, and alignment with broader governance and policy frameworks to achieve the objectives illustrated in the repositioning map (Figure 3).
5. Conclusions
- Creating a national coordination platform to align communication efforts across forestry institutions;
- Investing in digital outreach, youth-oriented engagement formats, and emotionally resonant narratives;
- Embedding communication activities into broader governance frameworks, funding mechanisms, and crisis planning structures.
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Detailed SWOT Analysis
- Strengths (S)
- Weaknesses (W)
- Opportunities (O)
- Threats (T)
Appendix B. Czech Forestry: Ownership, Forest Types, and Trends in Regeneration and Timber Harvesting
Ownership | Area of Forest Stands (ha) | % |
---|---|---|
State forests (A) | 1,430,138 | 54.63 |
LČR (state enterprise) | 1,184,195 | 45.24 |
Vojenské lesy a statky ČR, s.p. (military forests) | 123,401 | 4.71 |
Ministry of the Environment (national parks) | 95,483 | 3.65 |
Regional forests (secondary schools and others) | 2370 | 0.09 |
Other | 23,180 | 0.89 |
Ministry of the Environment (Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic) | 1510 | 0.06 |
Municipal forests (B) | 448,949 | 17.15 |
Private forests (C) | 738,427 | 28.21 |
Legal persons | 89,995 | 3.44 |
Forests owned by Churches and other religious entities | 120,856 | 4.62 |
Forest cooperatives and associations | 31,509 | 1.20 |
Forests owned by individuals | 496,066 | 18.95 |
Other forests (not listed elsewhere) | 113 | 0.00 |
Total (A + B + C) | 2,617,628 | 100.00 |
Species | 2000 | 2022 |
---|---|---|
Norway spruce (Picea abies) | 54.1 | 46.8 |
Silver fir (Abies alba) | 0.9 | 1.3 |
Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) | 17.6 | 16.0 |
European larch (Larix decidua) | 3.8 | 3.9 |
Other conifers (various species) | 0.2 | 0.4 |
Total Conifers | 76.5 | 68.4 |
Oak (Quercus spp.) | 6.3 | 7.8 |
Beech (Fagus sylvatica) | 6.0 | 9.6 |
Birch (Betula spp.) | 2.9 | 2.9 |
Other broadleaves (various species) | 7.1 | 9.2 |
Total Broadleaves | 22.3 | 29.5 |
Total area excluding clearings | 98.8 | 98.5 |
Year | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Indicator | ||||||||
Tree-covered land—coniferous species (ha) | 1875 | 1870 | 1862 | 1853 | 1836 | 1817 | 1788 | 1769 |
Tree-covered land—broadleaf species (ha) | 695 | 702 | 712 | 723 | 735 | 748 | 770 | 785 |
Total afforestation (ha) | 20 | 20 | 21 | 29 | 34 | 41 | 40 | 35 |
Natural forest regeneration (ha) | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 10 | 10 |
Total timber harvesting (m3) | 17,617 | 19,387 | 25,689 | 32,586 | 35,754 | 30,256 | 25,110 | 18,493 |
Timber harvesting—coniferous species (m3) | 15,924 | 17,735 | 24,213 | 31,313 | 34,487 | 28,714 | 23,050 | 16,600 |
Timber harvesting—broadleaf species (m3) | 1693 | 1652 | 1476 | 1273 | 1267 | 1542 | 2060 | 1893 |
Incidental (salvage) timber harvesting—total (m3) | 9399 | 11,743 | 23,013 | 30,945 | 33,912 | 26,279 | 19,776 | 11,034 |
Incidental harvesting—natural causes (e.g., wind, drought) (m3) | 2636 | 4345 | 8378 | 5879 | 4597 | 4862 | 5862 | 3422 |
Incidental harvesting—insect-related (e.g., bark beetle) (m3) | 4420 | 5853 | 13,059 | 22,780 | 26,243 | 18,286 | 11,545 | 5580 |
Percentage of Incidental (salvage) harvesting (%) | 53.4% | 60.6% | 89.6% | 95.0% | 94.8% | 86.9% | 78.8% | 59.7% |
References
- FAO. Global Forest Resources Assessment; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Siry, J.P.; Cubbage, F.W.; Ahmed, M.R. Sustainable forest management: Global trends and opportunities. For. Policy Econ. 2005, 7, 551–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Axelsson, R.; Angelstam, P.; Degerman, E.; Teitelbaum, S.; Andersson, K.; Elbakidze, M.; Drotz, M.K. Social and cultural sustainability: Criteria, indicators, verifier variables for measurement and maps for visualization to support planning. Ambio 2013, 42, 215–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Juknelienė, D.; Palicinas, M.; Valčiukienė, J.; Mozgeris, G. Forestry Scenario Modelling: Qualitative Analysis of User Needs in Lithuania. Forests 2024, 15, 414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mauser, H. Key Questions on Forests in the EU; European Forest Institute: Joensuu, Finland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Ameztegui, A.; Solarik, K.A.; Parkins, J.R.; Houle, D.; Messier, C.; Gravel, D. Perceptions of climate change across the Canadian forest sector: The key factors of institutional and geographical environment. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0197689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McDonagh, J.; Farrell, M.; Mahon, M.; Ryan, M. New opportunities and cautionary steps? Farmers, forestry and rural development in Ireland. Eur. Countrys. 2010, 2, 236–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janoušková, S.; Hák, T.; Nećas, V.; Moldan, B. Sustainable Development—A Poorly Communicated Concept by Mass Media. Another Challenge for SDGs? Sustainability 2019, 11, 3181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chazdon, R.; Brancalion, P. Restoring forests as a means to many ends. Science 2019, 364, 24–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IPCC. Climate Change 2022—Mitigation of Climate Change: Working Group III Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Cardey, S.; Eleazar, P.J.M.; Ainomugisha, J.; Kalowekamo, M.; Vlasenko, Y. Communication for Development: Conceptualising Changes in Communication and Inclusive Rural Transformation in the Context of Environmental Change. Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, 324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cienciala, E. Climate-Smart Forestry Case Study: Czech Republic; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Forest Management and Research Institute Bark Beetle Calamity Report. Available online: https://www.vulhm.cz/en/the-bark-beetle-calamity-is-slowly-receding-for-the-second-year/ (accessed on 12 May 2025).
- Flint, C.G.; McFarlane, B.; Müller, M. Human dimensions of forest disturbance by insects: An international synthesis. Environ. Manag. 2009, 43, 1174–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gežík, V.; Brnkaľáková, S.; Baštáková, V.; Kluvánková, T.; Gežík, V.; Brnkaľáková, S.; Baštáková, V.; Kluvánková, T. Economic and Social Perspective of Climate-Smart Forestry: Incentives for Behavioral Change to Climate-Smart Practices in the Long Term. Clim.-Smart For. Mt. Reg. 2022, 435–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Imbrenda, V.; Coluzzi, R.; Mariani, F.; Nosova, B.; Cudlinova, E.; Salvia, R.; Quaranta, G.; Salvati, L.; Lanfredi, M. Working in (Slow) Progress: Socio-Environmental and Economic Dynamics in the Forestry Sector and the Contribution to Sustainable Development in Europe. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riedl, M.; Hrib, M.; Jarský, V.; Jarkovská, M. Media analysis in a case study of Šumava National Park: A permanent dispute among interest groups. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 89, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hellström, E. Conflict cultures—Qualitative comparative analysis of environmental conflicts in forestry. Silva Fenn. Monogr. 2001, 2, 1–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morris, J.L.; Cottrell, S.; Fettig, C.J.; Hansen, W.D.; Sherriff, R.L.; Carter, V.A.; Clear, J.L.; Clement, J.; DeRose, R.J.; Hicke, J.A.; et al. Managing bark beetle impacts on ecosystems and society: Priority questions to motivate future research. J. Appl. Ecol. 2017, 54, 750–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arpin, I.; Cosson, A. Seeking legitimacy in European biodiversity conservation policies: The case of French national parks. Environ. Sci. Policy 2021, 116, 181–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steel, B.; List, P.; Lach, D.; Shindler, B. The role of scientists in the environmental policy process: A case study from the American west. Environ. Sci. Policy 2004, 7, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shindler, B.; Toman, E. Fuel Reduction Strategies in Forest Communities: A Longitudinal Analysis of Public Support. J. For. 2003, 101, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paruelo, J.M. Ecosystem services and tree plantations in Uruguay: A reply to Vihervaara et al. (2012). For. Policy Econ. 2012, 22, 85–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denyer, D.; Tranfield, D.; Van Aken, J.E. Developing Design Propositions through Research Synthesis. Organ. Stud. 2008, 29, 393–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kajanus, M.; Leban, V.; Glavonjić, P.; Krč, J.; Nedeljković, J.; Nonić, D.; Nybakk, E.; Posavec, S.; Riedl, M.; Teder, M.; et al. What can we learn from business models in the European forest sector: Exploring the key elements of new business model designs. For. Policy Econ. 2019, 99, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cirucci, A.M.; Pruchniewska, U.M. Problem Trees. In UX Research Methods for Media and Communication Studies; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 115–121. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. Participatory Rural Communication Appraisal: Starting with the People, 2nd ed.; SADC Centre of Communication for Development: Rome, Italy, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Pickton, D.J.; Wright, S. What’s swot in strategic analysis? Strateg. Change 1998, 7, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heath, R.L.; Johansen, W. The International Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Weihrich, H. The TOWS matrix-A tool for situational analysis. Long. Range Plan 1982, 15, 54–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okoli, C.; Pawlowski, S.D. The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Inf. Manag. 2004, 42, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linstone, H.; Turoff, M. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications; Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Kantar Media UK Ltd. Target Group Index (TGI) TGI—Kantar Media. Available online: https://www.kantarmedia.com/services/tgi (accessed on 12 May 2025).
- MEDIAN, s.r.o. Market & Media & Lifestyle (MML-TGI). Available online: https://www.median.eu/en/?page_id=151 (accessed on 12 May 2025).
- Couper, M.P. Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Public. Opin. Q. 2000, 64, 464–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Haan, M.; Ongena, Y.P.; Aarts, K. Reaching Hard-to-Survey Populations: Mode Choice and Mode Preference. J. Off. Stat. 2014, 30, 355–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Šodková, M.; Purwestri, R.C.; Riedl, M.; Jarský, V.; Hájek, M. Drivers and Frequency of Forest Visits: Results of a National Survey in the Czech Republic. Forests 2020, 11, 414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riedl, M.; Němec, M.; Jarský, V. Thirty Years of Research on Ecosystem Services: The Socio-Economic Role of Forest Visits and Foraging in Enhancing Human Well-Being. Forests 2024, 15, 1845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ESOMAR. ESOMAR Code and Guidelines for Market, Opinion and Social Research and Data Analytics. Available online: https://esomar.org/code-and-guidelines/icc-esomar-code (accessed on 18 February 2025).
- Preble, J.F. Integrating the Crisis Management Perspective into the Strategic Management Process. J. Manag. Stud. 1997, 34, 769–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeman, R.E.; Harrison, J.S.; Wicks, A.C. Managing for Stakeholders: Survival, Reputation and Success; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlsen, J.; Andersson, T.D. Strategic SWOT analysis of public, private and not-for-profit festival organisations. Int. J. Event. Festiv. Manag. 2011, 2, 83–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Settle, Q.; Baker, L.M.; Irani, T. Employee Perceptions of Branding Materials and External Communications for a State Forestry Organization. J. Agric. Educ. 2018, 59, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demaris, R.; Ries, A.; Trout, J. Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind. J. Mark. 1992, 56, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eriksson, M.; Samuelson, L.; Jägrud, L.; Mattsson, E.; Celander, T.; Malmer, A.; Bengtsson, K.; Johansson, O.; Schaaf, N.; Svending, O.; et al. Water, Forests, People: The Swedish Experience in Building Resilient Landscapes. Environ. Manag. 2018, 62, 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tengberg, A.; Gustafsson, M.; Samuelson, L.; Weyler, E. Knowledge Production for Resilient Landscapes: Experiences from Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues on Water, Food, Forests, and Landscapes. Forests 2020, 12, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldberg, M.H. Emotion in Strategic Environmental Communication Research: Challenges and Opportunities. Emot. Rev. 2023, 15, 289–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong-Parodi, G.; Feygina, I. Engaging People on Climate Change: The Role of Emotional Responses. Environ. Commun. 2021, 15, 571–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chawla, L. Life Paths Into Effective Environmental Action. J. Environ. Educ. 1999, 31, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wells, N.M.; Lekies, K.S. Nature and the Life Course: Pathways from Childhood Nature Experiences to Adult Environmentalism. Child. Youth Environ. 2006, 16, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNESCO from Clicks to Progress: Youth Digital Pathways for Sustainable Development|UNESCO. Available online: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/clicks-progress-youth-digital-pathways-sustainable-development-0 (accessed on 12 May 2025).
- Newman, N.; Fletcher, R.; Schulz, A.; Robertson, C.T.; Nielsen, R.K. Journalism, Media, and Technology Trends and Predictions 2023|Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Available online: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/journalism-media-and-technology-trends-and-predictions-2023 (accessed on 12 May 2025).
- Lynch, J.; Thomas, H. Digital Technology in Outdoor and Environmental Education: Affects, Assemblages and Curriculum-Making. Aust. J. Environ. Educ. 2024, 40, 288–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weick, K.; Sutcliffe, K. Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty; Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Jenkins, H.; Ford, S.; Green, J. Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture; New York University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Cornelissen, J.P. Corporate Communication: A Guide to Theory and Practice Seventh Edition; SAGE: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Bryson, J.M. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations, 5th ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Carayannis, E.G.; Campbell, D.F.J. Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and How Do Knowledge, Innovation and the Environment Relate To Each Other?: A Proposed Framework for a Trans-disciplinary Analysis of Sustainable Development and Social Ecology. Int. J. Soc. Ecol. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 1, 41–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic Zpráva o Stavu Lesa a Lesního Hospodářství 2023. Available online: https://mze.gov.cz/public/portal/mze/publikace/zprava-o-stavu-lesa-a-lesniho-hospodarstvi-cr/zprava-o-stavu-lesa-a-lesniho-hospodarstvi-2023 (accessed on 12 May 2025).
- Czech Statistical Office Forestry. Available online: https://csu.gov.cz/lesnictvi?pocet=10&start=0&podskupiny=101&razeni=-datumVydani (accessed on 12 May 2025).
Strengths (S) | Weaknesses (W) |
S1: Positive Public Attitude to Forest S2: Free Public Access to Forests S3: Developed Forest Infrastructure S4: Forest Pedagogy Network S5: Ecological Role of Forests S6: Market-Based Financing S7: Sustainability Ethos S8: Advanced Technology S9: Public Involvement in Forest Regeneration | W1: Unclear Strategic Direction W2: Inconsistent Public Communication W3: Weak Response to Misinformation W4: Missed Communication Opportunities W5: Slow Adaptation to Social Change W6: Public Misunderstanding of Forestry Economics W7: Inactive or Uninformed Forest Owners |
Opportunities (O) | Threats (T) |
O1: High Public Willingness to Engage O2: Post-Calamity Regeneration Success O3: Leverage High Forest Visitor Rates O4: Changing Social Needs and Preferences O5: Forestry’s Climate Role O6: Modern Technological Image O7: Influential Media Figures | T1: Increasing Media Criticism T2: Declining Public Support T3: Reduced Influence in Policy T4: Decline in Competitiveness and Lower Investment T5: Poorly Informed Decisions and Legislation T6: Natural and Economic Crises |
O1 | O2 | O3 | O4 | O5 | O6 | O7 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | T6 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S1 | + + | + + | + + | + + | + + | + + | + + | + | + | + | +16 | |||
S2 | + + | + + | + + | + + | + | + | + | +11 | ||||||
S3 | + + | + | + + | + | + | +7 | ||||||||
S4 | + + | + + | + | + + | + + | + + | + | + + | + + | + | +17 | |||
S5 | + | + | + + | + | + + | + + | + | + | + | + + | + | + | +16 | |
S6 | + | + | + | + + | + | + | + | + | + | + | +11 | |||
S7 | + + | + | + | + + | + + | + + | + + | + | + | + | + + | +17 | ||
S8 | + + | + | + | + + | + + | + | + | + + | + | + + | +15 | |||
S9 | + + | + + | + + | + | + | + + | + + | + + | + | + | +16 | |||
W1 | − | − − | − | − − | − − | − − | − − | − − | − − | − − | − | −19 | ||
W2 | − − | − − | − − | − − | − | − | − − | − − | − − | − − | − − | − − | − − | −24 |
W3 | − − | − − | − − | − | − | − | − − | − − | − − | − − | − − | − | − − | −22 |
W4 | − | − − | − − | − | − − | − − | − − | − − | − − | − | − − | − − | −21 | |
W5 | − | − | − | − − | − − | − − | − | − − | − − | − − | − − | − − | − − | −22 |
W6 | − − | − | − − | − | − | − | − | − − | − − | − | − | − − | −17 | |
W7 | − − | − | − | − | − | − | − − | − | − − | −12 | ||||
+1 | +7 | +5 | +2 | +5 | +5 | +0 | −5 | −6 | −5 | −7 | −6 | −2 |
Youth 12–24 Years Old | Families with Children | People from Cities Above 20,000 Inhabitants | Aged 12–79 In Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Forestry is a modern field that requires innovation | 14.9% | 15.0% | 13.4% | 14.5% |
Forestry is a mission, an obligation to preserve natural values | 39.3% | 47.5% | 50.8% | 49.3% |
Forestry is a traditional field with a slow-to-evolve approach | 23.1% | 18.1% | 17.1% | 17.7% |
Forestry is an economic sector geared towards raw material production and profit | 14.0% | 13.2% | 13.6% | 12.3% |
Forestry is an outdated discipline whose role should be replaced by nature conservation | 8.7% | 6.2% | 5.1% | 6.2% |
Total | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Sample population in units | 572 | 1404 | 1624 | 3600 |
Percentage of sample population | 15.89% | 39.00% | 45.11% | 100% |
Youth 12–24 Years Old | Families with Children | People from Cities Above 20,000 | Aged 12–79 Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|
They know what to do and how to handle the situation | 7.9% | 7.4% | 6.2% | 6.2% |
They are “victims of the bark beetle calamity” and they are doing their best | 9.7% | 10.4% | 12.6% | 11.8% |
They are important (neutral perception) | 41.4% | 40.2% | 41.0% | 41.0% |
They appear helpless | 22.4% | 25.5% | 25.1% | 25.3% |
They can’t handle the situation | 18.5% | 16.5% | 15.1% | 15.6% |
Percentage in total | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Sample population in units | 572 | 1404 | 1624 | 3600 |
Age Group | Never Visit | Very Rarely (1–2 × per Year) | Monthly (1 × per Month) | Weekly (1 × per Week) | Very Often (Several Times per Week) | Total =100% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Elderly (65+) | 20.9% | 22.5% | 21.7% | 19.4% | 15.5% | 1138 |
Older adults (45–64) | 8.8% | 23.9% | 29.5% | 21.0% | 16.7% | 1730 |
Adults (26–44) | 7.2% | 22.2% | 33.3% | 22.0% | 15.2% | 1810 |
Young (under 25) | 9.1% | 23.3% | 31.0% | 22.1% | 14.4% | 416 |
Total | 11.0% | 22.9% | 29.2% | 21.1% | 15.7% | 5094 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Riedl, M. Forestry Communication and Public Perception: Insights from the Czech Republic. Forests 2025, 16, 818. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16050818
Riedl M. Forestry Communication and Public Perception: Insights from the Czech Republic. Forests. 2025; 16(5):818. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16050818
Chicago/Turabian StyleRiedl, Marcel. 2025. "Forestry Communication and Public Perception: Insights from the Czech Republic" Forests 16, no. 5: 818. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16050818
APA StyleRiedl, M. (2025). Forestry Communication and Public Perception: Insights from the Czech Republic. Forests, 16(5), 818. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16050818