Science in Forestry: Why does it sometimes disappoint or even fail us?

Society invests in science to advance human interests and limit human impacts on the environment. However, despite great progress in forest science, governments and forest companies remain reluctant to invest adequately in research. We believe this reflects the perception that forest science serves itself more than forestry, and that one determinant of this perception is a misunderstanding of science. Science involves knowing, understanding and predicting. Many feel that only the reductionist, disciplinary, hypothetico-deductively-derived understanding component is hard science. Inductively derived knowledge and experience are often regarded as soft science. Predicting future states of forests involves complex hypotheses that are not amenable to traditional hypothesis testing and, according to some, this renders prediction of complex systems soft science. Science-based forest policy frequently employs hard science: the understanding component of science based on reductionist, jigsaw puzzle research. Neces...

[1]  D. Meadows,et al.  The limits to growth. A report for the Club of Rome's project on the predicament of mankind. , 1972 .

[2]  N. Rescher.  The limits of science , 1999 .

[3]  J. P. Kimmins.  Future shock in forestry Where have we come from; where are we going; is there a "right way" to manage forests? Lessons from Thoreau, Leopold, Toffler, Botkin and Nature , 2002 .

[4]  N. Rescher.  Complexity: A Philosophical Overview , 1998 .

[5]  Sen Wang.  Wicked problems and metaforestry: Is the era of management over? , 2002 .

[6]  Steven Johnson,et al.  Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software , 2001 .

[7]  J. P. Kimmins.  Community organization: methods of study and prediction of the productivity and yield of forest ecosystems , 1988 .

[8]  Simon A. Levin,et al.  Complex adaptive systems: Exploring the known, the unknown and the unknowable , 2002 .

[9]  E. M. Gould,et al.  Complexity, Wickedness, and Public Forests , 1986, Journal of Forestry.

[10]  G. F. Peterken,et al.  Natural Woodland: Ecology and Conservation in Northern Temperate Regions. , 1996 .

[11]  Michael Hauhs,et al.  Complexity and Simplicity in Ecosystems: The case of forest management , 2006 .

[12]  C. Koppes.  The Ends of the Earth: Efficiency, Equity, Esthetics: Shifting Themes in American Conservation , 1989 .

[13]  Robert G. Wagner,et al.  Process versus empirical models: which approach for forest ecosystem management? , 1996 .

[14]  H. Rittel,et al.  Dilemmas in a general theory of planning , 1973 .

[15]  Stephen R.J. Sheppard,et al.  Guidance for crystal ball gazers: developing a code of ethics for landscape visualization , 2001 .

[16]  Jianguo Wu,et al.  A spatially explicit hierarchical approach to modeling complex ecological systems: theory and applications , 2002 .

[17]  H. M. Rauscher.  Ecosystem management decision support for federal forests in the United States: a review , 1999 .

[18]  D. Meadows,et al.  The Limits to Growth , 2018, Green Planet Blues.

[19]  Eve Mitleton-Kelly,et al.  Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives on organisations: the application of complexity theory to organisations , 2003 .

[20]  A. Tansley.  The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms , 1935 .

[21]  B. K. Forscher,et al.  Chaos in the Brickyard. , 1963, Science.

[22]  J. Rowe.  The Level‐of‐Integration Concept and Ecology , 1961 .