Relational forestry: a call to expand the discipline’s institutional foundations

The discipline of forestry developed in 18th century Europe from the confluence of concerns about timber supply, industrialization and a disintegration of communal land rights. Out of this history, forestry has developed into an institution-a set of conventions, norms and legal rules influencing decisions made by foresters in their professional roles-that is rooted in a particular worldview that frames forests primarily as production systems to be managed for the satisfaction of human needs and preferences. We identify four institutional foundations of forestry drawing from textbooks, histories, university curriculum, professional societies' codes of ethics, policy documents, peer reviewed literature and the writings of prominent foresters. We explore how these foundations can contribute to limiting considerations for diverse worldviews and values and impede the discipline's utility in combating climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental injustice. To overcome these limitations and make forestry a more diverse and inviting field capable of addressing 21st century challenges, we propose revising these foundations based on relational thinking and suggest ways such a shift in the institution of forestry could be facilitated. We argue that these revised institutional foundations can make the discipline more open to diverse worldviews, more inviting to groups traditionally underrepresented in forestry, more trusted by the general public and better able to confront the challenges forests face under global change.