In July 2024, Shannon Hagerman, UBC Forestry Professor and Dean and Vice-Provost pro tem in the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, received the prestigious International Union of Forest Research Organizations Scientific Achievement Award for her work on human dimensions of forestry. Shannon is an environmental social scientist and an internationally recognized scholar in the interdisciplinary field of social-ecological systems. Her research focuses on policy and governance dimensions of novel approaches for conservation and resource management in response to climate change. We wanted to unpack what this approach means in practice.
What are the human dimensions of forestry?
Most people working in forestry today would agree that addressing complex environmental challenges requires thoughtful engagement with people and communities. But the field of human dimensions goes further than engagement. It encompasses a diverse body of scholarship that examines how people interact with forests and the environment, and how these interactions are shaped by deeper social, political and cultural factors. Today, human dimensions research draws not only from economics, psychology and political science, but also from disciplines that explore values, governance systems, power structures and more. This broader lens allows researchers to question foundational assumptions and examine how environmental problems are framed from the outset.
What does it mean to question assumptions and how is this reflected in your research?
I explore the types of knowledge, values and objectives that are included — or excluded — in environmental decision-making and the material consequences this has for people and nature. This area of inquiry is referred to as the politics of knowledge. It provides tools to unpack the narratives, interests and objectives behind how environmental issues are framed and addressed, and brings consideration of power to the fore. For example, whether the issue is setting biodiversity targets under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity or designing novel interventions to address climate change, I ask: Whose interests are being served? Whose knowledge and values are prioritized? Who is portrayed as responsible stewards and to what ends? What kinds of scientific evidence are privileged and what is left out? Simply put, different scientific perspectives, methods and data reveal and reproduce particular dimensions of a given problem and equally render other aspects invisible. We need to recognize this and pay attention to the institutions and processes that oftentimes limit consideration to a narrow range of empirical evidence. Every scientific perspective brings certain aspects of a problem into focus, and different scientific practices and forms of knowledge are more or less connected to structures of power. This is why it’s critical to look beyond calls for diverse knowledge and ask whether governance systems meaningfully support its inclusion
Is this about valuing multiple forms of knowledge?
Yes, but it’s also about more than that. The importance of diverse knowledge systems — Indigenous, local, experiential, natural sciences, social sciences and others — has been widely acknowledged for decades. But saying diverse forms of knowledge are valued is not the same as creating the mechanisms to ensure that they are meaningfully considered and effectively integrated in decision-making. The challenge lies in transforming governance structures and decision-making processes so that they reflect and support plural worldviews, epistemologies and ways of knowing.
How does this relate to the science-policy interface?
Similar to the human dimensions of forestry, the science-policy interface also needs to be unpacked. Scientific practices do not exist in a vacuum, and knowledge is unavoidably co-produced. For instance, science has, at times, reflected and perpetuated colonial, racist and gendered power structures. But these dynamics typically aren’t considered. Instead, we assume that simply providing policymakers with objective data will lead to good, evidence-based decisions. This linear model of science and policy is not empirically supported, but remains pervasive. More importantly, it obscures the complexities of how knowledge is actually produced and used in policy contexts. In some cases, paradoxically, knowledge can and has been used as a tool of social exclusion and dispossession, which is obviously a very real barrier to achieving more just, inclusive policy outcomes.
How can these insights help to produce positive change?
It starts with awareness: recognizing the complexity of these issues and the ways they show up in our work. For interdisciplinary researchers and practitioners in forestry, this means acknowledging the real-world impacts of how problems are framed and which types of knowledge are used or sidelined. Just as importantly, we must reflect critically on the practices and initiatives we contribute to. Are we reinforcing narrow framings or opening space for different perspectives? Are we listening to marginalized voices or replicating dominant narratives? This is not a task for social scientists alone. As climate, biodiversity and environmental crises intensify, many of the missing pieces for meaningful and just action at scale will come from deeper engagement with the human dimensions of these challenges.