Why do forest owners fail to heed warnings? Conflicting risk evaluations made by the Swedish forest agency and forest owners

In the aftermath of a hurricane in Sweden that felled some 250 million trees, the Swedish Forest Agency advised forest owners to reduce forest vulnerability by planting different tree species. This paper analyses why forest owners failed to heed the Forest Agency's recommendation, thereby reproducing a forest vulnerable to storms. This paper focuses on the deliberations and risk evaluations of forest owners when deciding which tree species to plant. The analysis identifies three main categories of reasoning that guided the forest owners' decision-making process: short-term economic reasoning caused by the pressing situation they faced; an understanding of windstorms as natural catastrophes that are impossible to influence; and the uncertainties associated with alternative forest management practices. Furthermore, given their risk-averse strategy, their approach to understanding and coping with uncertainty was crucial in determining their responses. This paper concludes that the forest owners primarily employed experience-based, practical and embodied knowledge, implying that abstract risks and theoretical knowledge regarding future developments were not deemed relevant. An additional conclusion is that even if a huge storm felling shows the need to change forest management practice, it does not provide the most favourable social conditions for achieving change.