(Un)polarized forests? Disentangling drivers of polarization in the public debate around German forests affected by climate change

Polarization is an increasingly prevalent issue in environmental conflicts, often simplified as two opposing arguments. However, most studies lack theoretical conceptualizations of polarization to reveal its complexity, drivers, and effects. By combining concepts of polarization with discourse analysis, this study provides a nuanced perspective on the social construction of land-use conflicts and their surrounding polarization. It demonstrates how disentangling underlying drivers and power relations enhances the understanding of conflicts, considering their context-specificity. To this end, I empirically scrutinize the factors of the deep-rooted conflict between forestry and nature conservation in Germany. The analysis focuses on public and political debates between 2018 and 2020 on forests affected by climate change. Large-scale forest damage has sparked controversy over whether to actively adapt forests or rely on the ecosystem’s self-regulation. While both sides instrumentalize climate change to emphasize the urgency of their measures to ‘save’ the forests and make them climate-resilient, the results demonstrate the entanglements of narratives and subject positions beyond this dichotomy. Rather than being issue-related, polarization is mainly driven by affective sentiments toward pre-constructed actor groups that are discursively reproduced. Polarization is further reinforced through perceived polarization , expressed through simplifications, generalizations, misconceptions, and dismissive reframing of opposing arguments. Instead of taking the negative effects of polarization for granted, the discussion highlights the need for research to critically reflect on the dynamics of polarization and the ways in which it manifests. This understanding is crucial for resolving entrenched debates, unfolding the generative potential of conflict, and allowing alternative solutions to emerge.