In the modern context of the strict protection of large carnivores, the competition for resources between local community dwellers and these animals has become an important challenge for ensuring coexistence—the key for conservation success. To assess the perceptions of this intricate relationship, six local communities from Central Romania, located in areas with high-density brown bear (Ursus arctos L.) population and frequent conflicts, were investigated. A large proportion of the respondents (69%) showed various forms of intolerance (e.g., relocation, punishment, or killing) towards aggressive bears. However, the cognitive evaluation score derived from the level of interaction with bears showed a non-significant (p = 0.470) segregation by tolerance levels, suggesting that not only the tangible costs (direct damage) but rather the psychological costs of fear, danger, or risk are more important drivers of negative attitudes towards bears. Furthermore, the prevalent experienced emotions towards an inoffensive bear (fear, terror, and hate, which represent 73%) underline the general preference for living in “separate worlds”. This requires that bears should avoid humans and their settlements, a goal unlikely to be achieved under the current strict protection regime. Therefore, an alternative strategy that ensures mutual avoidance of the two players may be more appropriate for successful human–bear coexistence.

The role of values in climate-related decision-making is a prominent theme of climate communication research. The present study examines whether forest professionals are more driven by values than scientists are, and if this results in value polarization. A questionnaire was designed to elicit and assess the values assigned to expected effects of climate change by forest professionals and scientists working on forests and climate change in Europe. The countries involved covered a north-to-south and west-to-east gradient across Europe, representing a wide range of bio-climatic conditions and a mix of economic–social–political structures. We show that European forest professionals and scientists do not exhibit polarized expectations about the values of specific impacts of climate change on forests in their countries. In fact, few differences between forest professionals and scientists were found. However, there are interesting differences in the expected values of forest professionals with regard to climate change impacts across European countries. In Northern European countries, the aggregated values of the expected effects are more neutral than they are in Southern Europe, where they are more negative. Expectations about impacts on timber production, economic returns, and regulatory ecosystem services are mostly negative, while expectations about biodiversity and energy production are mostly positive.

In this paper, we report an investigation of how forest stand mixture may affect biomass allometric relationships in Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.). Analysis of aboveground biomass data was conducted for 50 trees: 25 sample trees from a pure Norway spruce stand and 25 from a mixed stand of Norway spruce with European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.). ANCOVA results demonstrated that individual-tree biomass allometry of the pure stand significantly differed from that of the mixed stand. Allometric characteristics depended on the biomass component recorded and the type of biomass predictor used. When predicted by diameter at breast height and (or) height, the total aboveground biomass of mixed-stand trees was significantly less than that for pure-stand trees. This “apparent” lower aboveground biomass was attributed to the lower branch and needle biomass proportions of trees growing in mixed stand. The findings indicate that caution should be exercised when applying biomass allometric models developed from pure stands to predict tree biomass in mixed stands (and vice versa), as such data treatment may introduce significant bias.