Why do forest owners fail to heed warning? : conflicting risk evaluations made by the Swedish forestagency and forest owners

In the aftermath of a hurricane in Sweden thatfelled some 250 million trees, the Swedish Forest Agency advised forest ownersto reduce forest vulnerability by planting different tree species. This paperanalyses why forest owners failed to heed the Forest Agency’s recommendation,thereby reproducing a forest vulnerable to storms. This paper focuses on thedeliberations and risk evaluations of forest owners when deciding which treespecies to plant. The analysis identifies three main categories of reasoningthat guided the forest owners’ decision-making process: short-term economicreasoning caused by the pressing situation they faced; an understanding ofwindstorms as natural catastrophes that are impossible to influence; and theuncertainties associated with alternative forest management practices.Furthermore, given their risk-averse strategy, their approach to understandingand coping with uncertainty was crucial in determining their responses. Thispaper concludes that the forest owners primarily employed experience-based,practical and embodied knowledge, implying that abstract risks and theoreticalknowledge regarding future developments were not deemed relevant. An additionalconclusion is that even if a huge storm felling shows the need to change forestmanagement practice, it does not provide the most favourable social conditionsfor achieving change.Funding Agency:Forestry Research Institute of Sweden (Skogforsk) Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) Umea University Future Fores