Forest Policy Information Networks and the Role of Trust: Cooperative and Competitive Orientations and Underlying Causes

Abstract

The importance of trust has been widely acknowledged as a major antecedent and a constitutive element of information exchange in policy networks. The ultimate objective of the present article is to understand whether and how trust is a factor explaining patterns of limited information exchange between forestry and nature conservation actors in forest policy networks in Europe. Drawing upon analytical insights of actor-centered institutionalism (ACI) and building upon a qualitative network analysis (QNA) as a research strategy, the study focuses on the German forest policy network in order to provide deeper insights into the cooperative (i.e., generalized trust) and competitive (i.e., generalized distrust) orientations of forestry and nature conservation actors. The results reveal trust issues with respect to forest information, which can be framed according to the interests of forestry and nature conservation actors and used as a discursive weapon, softly steering them in a particular direction. The underlying causes of the trust issues are deeply rooted in conflicts of interests and power, preventing from exchanging forest information among forestry and nature conservation actors. It is therefore argued that forest information should be understood as a political asset rather than a neutral and objective form of expertise. This could explain persistent trust issues and conflicts among forestry and nature conservation actors when it comes to the exchange of forest information in the context of European forest policy networks.

The opportunities and challenges to co-designing policy options for tree health with policy makers, researchers and land managers

“…From the outset, the team was encouraged to view the co-design process as a series of steps, each building on the other, and each bringing land managers along on a codesign journey. Three steps or phases of codesign occurred between 2018 and 2021, each of a year in duration, following funding cycles (Ambrose-Oji et al, 2021;2019;2020). Each phase began by engaging and building relationships with land managers through a process of understanding their lived experiences dealing with tree pests and diseases, learning more about how they did or did not act in response and how their actions were related to the current tree health policy mechanisms.…”

“…During the design sprints, policy was able to move closer to ideas around land managers working together, suggesting policy options known to support the early stages of collaboration (Cisilino and Vanni, 2019). The issue of developing advice and guidance has created more of a challenge in terms of the wider policy context, even though it is well recognised that information, guidance, and knowledge networks are critical both for established managers of trees as well as hard to reach audiences (André et al, 2017;Baycheva-Merger, 2019;Fisher, 2013;Hasanagas, 2016;Lidskog and Sjödin, 2014;Matzek et al, 2014;Nourani et al, 2018;Pfeffer and Sutton, 1999).…”

Digital Opportunity or a Threat? Adoption of Internet of Things (IoT) Monitoring Systems for Natural Resources in Germany

“…So far, data security and privacy are outlined as one of the biggest challenges to the adoption of modern digital tools, both within natural resources management and beyond [14,28,[31][32][33][34]. Furthermore, increased information exchange and accessibility increases the risk of data misuse and misinterpretation [32,35], potentially leading to false environmental assessments and conflicts among stakeholders [36]. Concerns also arise over the loss of legitimation and public trust, as real-time data may reveal the underperformance of actors involved in natural resources management [37,38].…”

Sustainable Forest, Beautiful Forest, Well-Managed Forest: Attitudes towards Land Management and Their Influence on the Perception of a Mediterranean Agroforestry Landscape

“…In this case study, these are all methods that would reinforce the transparency of the decisionmaking as well as counteract the perception of a public land manager with limited practical knowledge and competence. Importantly, there is a need to make the technical staff visible in the landscape to reinforce the perception that real persons, working on the field, actually are sensitive to the needs of the local community and care for the landscape, demonstrating relevant knowledge of the land [37,57].…”