Send message to Contributors

Contribution short abstract

This contribution demonstrates how forest owners' and forest professionals' practices relate to public polarised forest discourses in Finland. We argue that the coexistence of competing ideas about forests creates tensions but also enables innovative, ambivalent, and at times paradoxical practices.

Contribution long abstract

Public debate on forests in Finland—one of the most forested countries in Europe—is highly polarised. This polarisation is commonly framed as a conflict between actors who emphasise forest conservation, biodiversity, and climate change mitigation, and those who prioritise rural livelihoods and the economic value of forestry. By examining how forest owners' and forest professionals' interaction and management practices relate to these polarised discourses, this paper complements studies that have focused on public discourse strategies surrounding forest management in Finland.

We show that many forest owners and professionals refrain from publicly articulating their views due to fear of social and professional backlash. Yet their practices continue to evolve within this contested landscape. We argue that the coexistence of multiple, competing ideas about forests creates tensions in decision-making processes, but also enables innovative, ambivalent, and at times paradoxical practices that do not align neatly with dominant public positions. Furthermore, forest owners and professionals highlight different understandings of forests across social contexts, demonstrating how silence, selectivity, and context-dependent articulation operate as practical responses to polarisation. The contribution is based on the authors' ethnographic research.