The first time I was asked to explain why a forest was dying, I expected the problem to be the most difficult to diagnose. Instead I was faced with a more complex challenge – one that my training had not prepared me to expect.
It happened during a field trip to Denmark as part of my master’s program, where my forestry students and I were brought to a small-scale, family-owned forest. Since the introduction of the Danish Forest Act in 1805, Denmark has seen a steady increase in forests. From about 2% to 15% over the past two centuries. Many landowners – such as those we visited – have an incentive to convert agricultural land to forest for logging, often increasing North American conifer species which is in global demand.
I didn’t fully realize it at the time, but having this historical, social and economic insight would be extremely valuable.
As we huddled between rows of decaying, exotic trees, our professor stood next to two landowners, an elderly father and son. He then addressed our small but enthusiastic group of graduate students and asked us a question, which was far more fruitful than intended: “Can you explain why their forest is not thriving?”
Our classes equipped us with knowledge of silvicultural theory and ecology, so it was clearly felt that the forest – recently established using non-native species on former agricultural land – was heavily infected. Heterobasidion root rot This would severely compromise the site, at least for this first generation of trees. Unbeknownst to father and son, their forest had become unhealthy and would not be profitable in their lifetime.
Science was very clear to our students. However, it was unclear how we were supposed to interpret and contextualize it while standing by those who were suffering the inevitable consequences.
In no time the atmosphere changed. What was meant to be an engaging and collaborative experience between landowners and scholars quickly became tense and uncomfortable as some of us silently blamed the owners for making management choices that were irreparably harmful, not just to themselves but to the environment as a whole.
Other students sympathized with the owners, who operated on generous subsidies provided by their government. As the tone of the conversation evolved further, I felt painfully conflicted and tried to understand the two opposing sides equally. Yet, no one asked the most important question: What did the landowners need from us?
I hoped that further discussions, even a formal lecture, would follow this trip, so that we could be equipped for similar situations in the future. My colleagues and I were left with many questions about what we can learn from that day and how we can work in the future to support both forests and forest owners. Unfortunately, this dialogue never took place.
A rift between science and society
This story is not unique to an educational trip. Around the world, scientists must decipher the complex ecological realities of people whose livelihoods, identities, cultures, and futures are tied to forests. Climate change, invasive species, and land exploitation all coincide with management practices that have profound social, political, and economic implications.
Despite our collective need to address each of these issues and their drivers, Organizations often fail to translate decades of research into meaningful action. We have seemingly neglected an important step in the scientific method: dissemination and implementation.
At its core, it’s a communication breakdown, and consequently Public opinion suffers from mistrust and misinformation.
Arguably, scientists and academics bear an immense responsibility to place their knowledge into social context and application – especially in the forestry sector, where our actions (or inaction) today will materialize for centuries to come.
This rift reflects a deep methodological problem in the natural and “hard” sciences. Although it is clear that environmental experts have to approach today wicked problem Through interdisciplinary thinking, Universities are lagging behind in this situation. The social sciences in particular are often treated as peripheral to, rather than complementary to, the empirical sciences.
As an advocate and student of science, I ask: Where policy is made and decisions are made, either for the betterment or destruction of the planet, is it in our best interest as a scientific community to avoid the human dimensions of our work?
lesson learned
After the field trip, I began writing my thesis Bridging the youth-nature divide through forest education. Through my research, I have come to understand how scientific information needs to be connected to our societal needs and values for environmental progress.
Much of this work can be improved in university, even primary education, by equipping the next generation with both technical and soft skills to solve problems. Practice in navigating conflict, training in creative thinking, and a learned appreciation for different knowledge systems should be mandatory learning outcomes for any student. As one person I interviewed said: “It’s about empowering students and making them resilient.”
From this perspective, my fellow forestry students would benefit from an educational approach that included environmental knowledge as well as social, political, and historical awareness.
to go beyond Knowledge-action gapScientists must recognize integrated and iterative communication as essential to the research process. In practice, this means engaging nonscientists and adapting research findings and public education in response to their feedback. For practitioners and citizens who care about our forests and a sustainable future, the demand for accessible and sustainable communication across sectors offers a promising path forward.
In hindsight, I wish I had invited forest owners to share their personal goals, understandings, and challenges to provide a relational context for my technical assessment. I wish I had the foundation in social science that I do now. Maybe a more holistic toolkit would allow for a constructive dialogue centered around solutions.
–
This post was Previously published on THEREVELATOR.ORG and republished in Medium.
–
If you believe in the work we’re doing at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member today.
All premium members can watch The Good Men Project without any ads.
Need more information? A full list of benefits is here.
–
Photo credit: iStock.com
