Climate change adaptation measures conflicted with the recreational demands on city forests during COVID-19 pandemic

Urbanization and climate change are placing growing pressures on urban green infrastructure across Europe, including urban forests. City and community-owned forests (CCF) are a crucial component of urban forests, delivering recreational, ecological, and economic functions, with management largely aimed at urban residents’ well-being. During COVID-19 restrictions, urban forest visitation surged, underscoring their importance for physical and mental health, but also creating pressures and conflicts with other forest functions. Concurrently, droughts and heat stress have damaged trees and increased visitor safety risks (e.g., falling branches), prompting temporary forest closures in some locales in Germany and threatening the recreational function. Studies suggest potential trade-offs between recreation, forest operations, biodiversity, and climate adaptation. Stakeholder participation is critical to manage these trade-offs effectively. The WHO recommends providing safe, accessible open spaces to promote mental well-being, yet how to balance enhanced recreation with climate change adaptation remains unclear. This study evaluates how stakeholder groups involved in CCF management in Karlsruhe perceive conflicts between climate adaptation and increased recreational use during COVID-19. Research questions: (1) How do stakeholder groups perceive climate adaptation challenges for CCF and which solutions are important? (2) What new conflicts between COVID-19-related recreational use and climate adaptation are identified? (3) What solutions can maximize recreation demand while adapting to climate change?

Prior work has documented the benefits of urban forests for recreation, mental and physical health, and urban quality of life, and highlighted their roles in climate adaptation. Stakeholder perceptions of urban forest climate adaptation have been explored in various contexts (e.g., Serbia, United States), emphasizing the need to adapt forests themselves. Studies during COVID-19 reported increased visitation and underscored urban forests as critical infrastructure, but also noted emerging trade-offs between recreation, operations, and habitat functions. Debates on native versus non-native species are prominent: many practitioners, NGOs, and media advocate native species due to ecological integrity and biodiversity concerns, while literature clarifies that not all non-native species are invasive and that in some regions native species alone may be insufficient to ensure resilience and ecosystem services under future climates. Governance literature stresses the importance of inclusive, participatory decision-making to reconcile diverse stakeholder preferences and avoid trade-offs among ecosystem services. Research also points to tools like visitor guidance, spatial prioritization, and mapping of use and biodiversity features to harmonize recreation with conservation and production functions.

Study area: Karlsruhe (southwestern Germany, Baden-Württemberg), ~308,000 residents (2020), with 4,446 ha forest (one-quarter of city area), of which ~2,250 ha are municipal/community-owned and managed by the city. The area has experienced climate-induced tree damage and a COVID-19-driven surge in visitation, making it a pertinent case. Stakeholder selection: Based on frameworks by Salbitano et al. and Ottitsch & Krott, stakeholders were grouped into NGOs and associations, Administration, and Scientists and Professionals. NGOs/associations included nature conservation and citizen groups; Administration included municipal council, state and city forest administrations and related offices (also forest owners); Scientists and Professionals included experts in climate change, human health, forest policy, and spatial planning. Sample: 54 invitations, 16 interviewees (4 NGOs/associations, 4 Administration, 8 Scientists/Professionals). Interview design and implementation: Systematized semi-structured expert interviews (Meuser & Nagel). Guide covered: (i) views on the Karlsruhe climate adaptation plan (CAP, 2020), (ii) COVID-19 impacts on urban forest management, (iii) conflicts and solutions to align climate adaptation with increased recreation. Interviews conducted in German via Zoom (due to pandemic restrictions), audio recorded with consent; average duration 25 minutes (range 12–43). Transcription followed smoothing rules (Bogner et al.); anonymization per Ebel & Meyermann. Analysis: Qualitative content analysis using MAXQDA. Coding developed deductively from theory/interview guide, then refined inductively; two analysis rounds for validation (Kuckartz & Rädiker). Summaries and results tables compiled; themes formulated aligned to research questions. Quantitative components included frequency analysis of coded segments per stakeholder group (normalized by number of interviewees) and document similarity analysis to assess within- and between-group homogeneity using MAXQDA’s similarity metric. Visualizations (cross tabulations) presented distributions of themes across groups. Data availability: anonymized transcripts deposited in Figshare (DOI provided).

Stakeholder divergence and similarity: - Within-group accordance (document similarity): NGOs and Associations 74%; Scientists and Professionals 72%; Administration 67% (least similar). - Between-group accordance: lowest between Scientists/Professionals and Administration (63%), followed by Scientists/Professionals and NGOs/Associations (65%); Administration and NGOs/Associations 69%. Perceptions of Karlsruhe’s Climate Adaptation Plan (CAP): - All NGO/association stakeholders were aware of the CAP; awareness was uneven in other groups. NGOs/associations evaluated the CAP negatively; Administration mostly positive; Scientists/Professionals saw positives but criticized inadequate action against neophytes. Key climate adaptation challenges and debates: - Financing was the most frequently cited challenge (strongly emphasized by NGOs and Administration). Calls for political prioritization and budget allocation. - Tree species selection was a central controversy. NGOs/associations and parts of Administration opposed non-native species due to perceived low ecological value and habitat support; some Administration and Scientists/Professionals supported limited, site-appropriate inclusion of non-native species for resilience under drought/heat (e.g., up to 20–30% in line with FSC-like guidance). - Additional issues included overemphasis on economic use (NGOs), urbanization pressures (Scientists/Professionals), and process protection debates. Proposed future solutions for climate adaptation: - Location-adjusted (site-specific) planning was the most cited solution (12 mentions), emphasizing local decision-making. - Increased research (11 mentions) on species selection, climate impacts, and management effectiveness; stronger integration of scientific expertise into planning. - Other suggestions included improved communication, biodiversity/mixed forests, and deprioritizing economic use where appropriate. Emerging conflicts between climate adaptation and recreation (during COVID-19): - Visitor behavior/misconduct widely cited by NGOs and Administration (e.g., off-trail use, disturbance to wildlife, entering conservation areas, littering, night-time disturbance with artificial light). Scientists rarely mentioned this. - Functional conflicts (highlighted by all groups) were seen as more serious than simple use conflicts: tensions between near-natural management, biodiversity/habitat trees and visitor safety (deadwood, crown damage), as well as hunting needs versus high visitor presence; conflicts between economic (wood production) and recreational functions (visitor dissatisfaction with machinery, muddy paths). - Accessibility and environmental justice: Scientists/Professionals highlighted inequitable spatial access to forests across neighborhoods; allergies and other barriers can reduce recreational value. - Infrastructure deficits: Administration noted inadequate recreation infrastructure (paths, parking, benches, waste bins, signage) under increased visitor pressure. Strengthening recreation while adapting: - The recreational function during COVID-19 had the highest overall emphasis (13 mentions). - Solutions varied by group. Scientists/Professionals emphasized visitor monitoring/social monitoring to adapt design and management to changing use; this was not taken up by NGOs/Administration. - Infrastructure improvements for recreation were supported by Scientists/Professionals and Administration (to reduce littering, conflicts, and injustice); NGOs did not prioritize this. - NGOs advocated increased controls and sanctions by public authorities/rangers to address misconduct; Administration criticized the limited effectiveness of sanctions, favoring awareness-raising. - All groups opposed forest bans and supported keeping forests accessible; all highlighted the need for communication and education to build acceptance and responsible behavior. Quantitative highlights from recreation solutions (based on coded mentions; total n=56): - Recreational function (during COVID-19): 13 mentions (23.2%). - Communication/Education: 10 (17.9%). - Visitor management: 7 (12.5%). - Infrastructure for recreation: 6 (10.7%). - No forest ban: 6 (10.7%). - Financing: 5 (8.9%). - Visitor monitoring: 5 (8.9%). - Control/sanctions: 4 (7.2%).

The study reveals that heightened recreational demand during COVID-19 intersects with climate adaptation needs, producing functional conflicts within urban forest management. Stakeholder groups broadly agree on the importance of recreation and accessibility but diverge in diagnosing problems and choosing solutions. Funding constraints and the tree species selection debate exemplify contested adaptation pathways. While NGOs/associations tend to prioritize ecological integrity and oppose non-native species, some Administration and Scientists/Professionals support constrained, site-appropriate use of non-native species to maintain ecosystem services under drought and heat, aligning with policy directions in Karlsruhe’s CAP. The most serious tensions are functional: reconciling visitor safety with near-natural management (retention of deadwood, habitat trees), accommodating hunting for regeneration with high visitor presence, and managing public aversion to visible forest operations. Scientists highlight equity concerns in access and propose data-driven approaches (visitor monitoring) to adaptively manage use; Administration stresses infrastructure deficits; NGOs focus on visitor misconduct and seek enforcement. Across groups, communication and education are seen as crucial, with consensus against forest closures. The findings underscore the need for locally adjusted planning, integration of scientific evidence, participatory governance, and spatial prioritization (guiding visitors to appropriate areas) to balance recreation, biodiversity, and economic functions without compromising climate resilience.

This study contributes evidence on how diverse urban forest stakeholders perceive and propose to manage the trade-offs between climate change adaptation and heightened recreational demand during COVID-19. Key contributions include: (i) documenting group-specific divergences and common ground (e.g., shared emphasis on recreation, opposition to forest bans, and prioritization of communication/education); (ii) identifying financing and species selection as central adaptation challenges; (iii) highlighting functional conflicts (safety vs. habitat, hunting vs. visitation, production vs. recreation) as more critical than simple use conflicts; and (iv) elevating locally adjusted planning and research as primary solutions for adaptation, alongside visitor monitoring, infrastructure improvements, and outreach. Future research should: assess long-term post-pandemic visitation patterns; evaluate impacts and effectiveness of visitor guidance/monitoring on both recreation quality and biodiversity outcomes; refine criteria for site-appropriate inclusion of non-native species; and develop spatial decision-support integrating ecological, recreational, and economic objectives to inform equitable, climate-resilient urban forest management.

- Stakeholder scope: Interviews covered community decision-makers, NGOs, and researchers; private companies (e.g., timber industry) and global organizations (FAO, UN-Habitat, WHO) were not included. Local tourism associations and companies were invited but declined. - Sample size and recruitment: 16 interviewees (of 54 contacted) may limit generalizability; views may reflect those willing to participate during pandemic constraints. - Method and context: Interviews were conducted via Zoom in German during pandemic conditions, potentially affecting depth and dynamics. - Evidence base: Findings are perception-based and context-specific to Karlsruhe; climate impacts and policy positions may evolve with new evidence. - Future uncertainty: Long-term effects of COVID-19 on recreation and the effectiveness of proposed measures (e.g., visitor guidance, education) require ongoing monitoring and evaluation.