Send message to Authors

Paper short abstract

Based on a scientific review of forestry literature, we argue that the knowledge and beliefs of its authors reinforce the dominant forest management paradigm centered on the bioeconomy and reinforce the path dependence of current policies as alternative options lack sufficient discursive resources.

Paper long abstract

Climate change is considered the primary disturbance factor affecting forest resilience in Europe. Management and policy responses will be guided by scientific research on the impact of climate change on forests and the recommended mitigation and adaptation strategies. Therefore, it is crucial to assess and understand the scientific evidence and the available management options to ensure effective planned interventions. At the same time, scientific policy recommendations may be influenced by the beliefs and values of their authors, who may belong to different epistemic communities of like-minded researchers. Because evidence reflects different beliefs and values regarding forests, some policy options may be more likely to be adopted than others. To verify this, we conducted a systematic review of the literature on the impact of climate change on Polish forests and their management strategies. We identified 64 relevant papers and analyzed them concerning climate-related stresses, disturbances, and proposed responses. We also categorized these responses by the type of proposed change and their alignment with two competing forest management paradigms: the dominant one focused on sustainable yield, and the alternative one emphasizing closer-to-nature forestry and biodiversity conservation. Each paradigm is represented by a different advocacy coalition aiming to translate their beliefs and values into policy. The findings indicate that climate change adaptation in forestry largely follows the traditional sustainable yield approach and resists broad policy changes. We conclude that this disparity reinforces the path dependence of existing policies, as alternative options lack sufficient discursive resources to effectively promote policy change.