133
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Articles

Multiple Ontologies and Shared Terms of Debate in Southern Appalachian National Forest Planning

ORCID Icon
Pages 716-732 | Received 17 Apr 2022, Accepted 28 Mar 2023, Published online: 05 May 2023
 

Abstract

Ontological approaches are rarely used to investigate US public lands controversies and collaborative planning efforts, specifically among non-indigenous groups. This paper examines the potential role of ontological differences in driving persistent disputes within a national forest planning process in the southern Appalachians. Using participant observation and interviews with planning participants, I found contention not over the resources of a single forest but rather the social and ecological relationships that constituted five distinct forests whose threats and needs were made obvious through personal experiences, community histories, and scientific and local knowledge. Collaborative efforts sought to work through controversies in part by appealing to shared principles. However, what appeared to be shared terms of debate transposed ontological conflicts into narrow technical disputes that often remained intractable. The ontological dimensions of contention in collaborative planning suggest the need to broaden dialogue and revisit core themes in collaboration scholarship and practice.

Acknowledgements

I thank the Coweeta Listening Project, the Anthropology and Environment Society, and the University of Georgia Graduate School for supporting this research. I am also grateful to the editors and reviewers for their engagement with the manuscript – their comments contributed greatly to improving and honing the text. Most importantly, I thank all the people who gave their time to talk with me and share their knowledge and passion for the southern Appalachian landscape and the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Specifically, I thank all the participants in the Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Partnership, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Council, the Stakeholders Forum for the Nantahala and Pisgah Plan Revision, and the members of the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests planning team.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.