LAUSR

Abstract The Horizon 2020 project, ALTERFOR, generated knowledge about forest management alternatives. Researchers modelled a future, sustainable provision of ecosystem services, where a salient question was one of how to facilitate the application of these innovative scientific results in praxis. Our qualitative study uses a method mix and the analytical Research-Integration-Utilisation (RIU) Model to provide in-depth explanation of the knowledge transfer going on between the ALTERFOR research project and the forestry praxis. The leading assumption related to this communication process is that selected pieces of information are de-embedded from their scientific context of the research project and re-embedded into the existing knowledge of specific forestry actors, who utilise them to implement science-based management solutions in their forest. This assumption is empirically corroborated by using ALTERFOR's German case. For the approximately 100, 000 ha of Augsburg Western Woods (south-western Bavaria) the researchers simulated five scenarios, showing which ecosystem services would be provided by different forest management models over the next 100 years. The integration of scenario results into the praxis comprised three integration forums. Within the first forum (pre-study) the alternatives focusing on “recreation” and “hunting” were dropped due to a lack of supportive powerful allies from praxis. Within the second forum (bilateral meeting) the three other scenarios - “timber production”, “multifunctional” and “set aside” scenarios, all remained in the discourse of praxis. Yet, the third forum (multilateral meeting - workshop) triggered the toughest selection. Most project results were either ignored or declined strongly, so that only a few pieces of scientific information found acceptance by particular actors, who utilised them either through support or resistance: (i) the State Forest used the information about the “multifunctional” scenario to legitimise the solution which was already in use (multifunctional management), whereas the Private Forest used the information for the possibility to increase timber harvests in a sustainable way, in order to push for (an otherwise contested) strategy of maximized timber harvesting; (ii) the State Forest resisted the possibility of increasing sustainable timber harvesting, whereas the Private Forest rejected the implementation of set asides. Both actors had sufficient power capabilities to realise their interests, even against the interests of other landowners or political groups. These results show that it is not complex scientific knowledge that makes it through the selection process, but rather, pieces of scientific information, de-embedded from their theory-based context of the research project, are re-embedded into the context of powerful actors in praxis, who then utilise these to either support or resist their own science-based solutions. Based on this, we suggest that the ambitious Horizon 2020 goal of facilitating knowledge transfer is attained more effectively when the project opens up multiple options for dialogue between researchers and different groups from praxis (multi-actor approach), abandoning the idea of one, best solution and offering different alternatives instead.