Historical policy analysis reveals shifting political and economic drivers of forestry across national transitions, indicating that institutional governance dictates sustainable land management.
• Forest sector of Latvia has faced dramatic changes during the last century. • Historical occupations prioritized resource extraction over environmental issues. • Major factors affecting forest changes in past are political and economic interests. • Recently, forest changes influence environmental and socio-economic driving forces. • Balancing economic, ecological, social goals is key for future forest governance. This study examines the complex interplay of political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal factors that have shaped forest land use, management, and policy in Latvia over the past century. Using a PESTEL analysis approach, the research identifies and evaluates the relative importance of these driving forces across six distinct historical-political periods, from the Russian Empire to Latvia's current EU membership. The findings reveal that political and economic factors have consistently been the dominant influences, with their relative weights shifting according to the prevailing governance systems. The study highlights how occupations have led to unsustainable forest exploitation, while Latvia’s independence and subsequent integration in the European Union have fostered more balanced approaches to forest management. The paper concludes that while environmental factors, particularly climate change, are increasingly significant, political and institutional decisions remain crucial in shaping forest policy. This historical perspective provides valuable insights for anticipating future forest changes and developing sustainable management strategies in Latvia, as well as potentially in other countries with similar historical trajectories. The study may serve to integrate the perspectives of forest researchers, policymakers, environmental activists, and land-use experts to enhance the understanding of forest governance and sustainability challenges.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stankeviča et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: