Why Our Relationship with Forests is More Complex Than Ever
Forests are not just collections of trees—they are living tapestries woven from ecological processes, human communities, political agendas, and cultural values. Understanding these complex relationships requires examining two crucial concepts: scale and agency. As climate change accelerates and conservation efforts intensify, forest anthropologists are uncovering how decisions made at global levels intersect with the lived experiences of those who inhabit and depend upon these landscapes. This emerging research reveals that how we define scale and who we recognize as having agency fundamentally shapes forest futures.
Global policies impact local realities
Who gets to decide forest futures?
Human and nonhuman actors shape forests
In conservation science, scale refers to the spatial, temporal, quantitative, or analytical dimensions used to study environmental processes 3 . However, deep epistemological divides exist between how different disciplines conceptualize scale. Natural sciences often treat scale as an objective feature of the world, while critical social sciences view it as shaped by political and moral considerations 3 .
This tension becomes critical as conservation organizations face pressure to "scale up" impact in response to biodiversity loss. The push for scaling affects three interconnected factors: ethical considerations, epistemological parity, and institutional structures 3 .
Traditional models often limit agency to human decision-makers—foresters, policymakers, or indigenous communities. However, contemporary forest anthropology recognizes nonhuman agency as a significant force in forest systems 1 . This includes the capacity of ecological processes like fire regimes, soil systems, and predator-prey relationships to influence forest futures alongside human activities.
Agency is also distributed unequally among human actors. Research in British Columbia reveals how Indigenous researchers, government scientists, and environmental advocates operate with vastly different degrees of power and recognition 2 .
| Type of Agency | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Individual Human Agency | Capacity of individual actors to influence forest management | A forester deciding which trees to mark for harvest |
| Collective Human Agency | Coordinated action through communities or organizations | Indigenous blockades against logging in British Columbia 2 |
| Nonhuman Agency | Influence of ecological processes and species | Fire regimes shaping forest composition and structure 9 |
| Institutional Agency | Power of formal organizations and policies | Government agencies prioritizing certain types of forest research 2 |
An illuminating example of scale tensions emerges from interdisciplinary conservation projects in Indonesia that integrated cultural anthropology and conservation biology to enhance multispecies coexistence 3 . These collaborations brought together researchers with fundamentally different orientations to scale, measurement, and analysis.
Anthropologists focused on place-based knowledge, spending extended periods in specific communities to understand nuanced relationships between people and forests. Meanwhile, conservation biologists often prioritized broader patterns measurable across larger spatial and temporal scales to track species populations and habitat change.
| Dimension | Anthropological Approach | Conservation Biology Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Temporal Scale | Long-term immersion (years); historical depth | Often shorter-term; focused on current trends and future projections |
| Spatial Scale | Intensive focus on specific sites | Extensive coverage of larger areas |
| Unit of Analysis | Households, communities, cultural practices | Species populations, habitat units, ecosystem boundaries |
| Data Collection | Qualitative interviews, participant observation | Quantitative surveys, remote sensing, statistical sampling |
The research revealed that scale choices are inescapably political—they illuminate certain processes while obscuring others 3 . For instance, focusing on regional deforestation rates made visible landscape-level patterns but erased community-specific experiences of resource access. Conversely, intimate community studies captured nuanced social dynamics but struggled to connect to broader policy conversations.
Successful collaboration required negotiating epistemological parity—recognizing the value of different knowledge systems rather than privileging one approach as more "scientific" or "rigorous." Teams that established reflexive practices, acknowledging how their disciplinary backgrounds shaped scale preferences, produced more robust and integrated findings.
Layering cultural knowledge onto official spatial documents. Challenges state cartographies; makes visible Indigenous territorial claims 2 .
Systematic documentation along predetermined paths. Allows resource-constrained teams to cover larger areas through part-time contributions 2 .
Computational simulation of interactions between agents and environments. Explores how individual decisions aggregate into landscape patterns 9 .
Extended immersion in communities. Reveals localized forms of agency and scale perception.
Mapping relationships between actors. Identifies patterns of influence and collaboration in forest management 9 .
As we confront global environmental challenges, forest anthropology offers crucial insights for developing more equitable and effective conservation strategies.
Recognizing that different scale perspectives reveal complementary rather than competing truths about forest systems.
Ensuring that Indigenous and local knowledge systems are recognized as valid ways of knowing forest environments.
Encouraging researchers to critically examine how their backgrounds shape scale preferences and agency recognition.
The future of forests may depend less on finding the right scale or identifying the most powerful agents, and more on learning to navigate the dynamic relationships between them.
Develop frameworks for integrating diverse knowledge systems in forest governance; refine methods for documenting nonhuman agency.
Establish protocols for interdisciplinary collaboration that respect different scale perspectives; create tools for visualizing multi-scalar forest dynamics.
Cultivate institutional structures that support adaptive, multi-scalar approaches to forest stewardship; transform conservation policy to recognize distributed agency.