Masters Theses

Date of Award

12-1996

Degree Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Science

Major

Forestry

Major Professor

David M. Ostermeier

Committee Members

J. Mark Fly, Charles Cleland

Abstract

Like other states, Tennessee has experienced some conflict over forest resource management that has or could result in courtroom litigation, legislative action, and/or protests. Responding to this confrontational atmosphere, a diverse, national coalition of forest stakeholders developed a model for convening local roundtables to provide preliminary input to the Seventh American Forest Congress, planned for February of 1996. This process was designed to bring diverse groups of stakeholders in America's forests together to seek "common ground" on the future use and management of forests and associated resources. A committee of eleven diverse individuals organized and executed one of these meetings, the Tennessee Forest Roundtable, on November 11, 1995. To their credit, the organizing committee succeeded in planning and executing the roundtable with tight constraints on time, but time pressures prohibited all committee members from actively contributing in all decisions and may have limited the group's cohesiveness. Thirty-nine individuals representing a range of stakeholders in Tennessee's forest resources attended the program, and through the facilitated process developed some "common ground." This study examines the Tennessee Forest Roundtable as a process for developing "common ground" between diverse stakeholders and examines the content of the resulting consensus statements and unresolved issues. The process proved to be one effective way to engage this group of stakeholders in dialogue about the resources that they all value. Though the participants did not represent the 'ideal' distribution envisioned by the organizing committee, they did represent a broad range of stakeholders. The only group identified in the 'ideal' that was not represented was that of recreation/tourism interests. Several other groups identified in the 'ideal' were under represented, and the participants did not reflect the general demographics of Tennessee regarding sex, race, or age. Overall, the process's use of small groups and facilitators worked effectively, but not all participants were equally satisfied with the quality of facilitators. Time constraints limited the program from its conception and continued to be important throughout the program. The day's planned activities were cut short which is thought to have limited the range of "common ground" which was identified. Facilitators, committee members, and participants all suggested that more time would be beneficial in developing "common ground" and understanding. Despite these constraints, participants did develop forty-three consensus statements. This "common ground" clearly demonstrated that these participants believe strongly in both using and caring for forests and their resources, i.e., using the forest to meet human wants and needs but maintaining forest health and sustainability. The remaining comments, on which participants did not deliberate or could not agree, suggest that stakeholders have great interest in forest policy, management, and use. These unresolved issues also suggest that disagreements remain about how society is to balance the needs of human and natural communities. They also display the ambivalence surrounding how society is to balance private and public rights and responsibilities. Both the process and content analysis suggest that though these forest stakeholders have taken some crucial first steps toward developing a collaborative community, more time and energy must be invested if the stakeholders in Tennessee's forest resources are to truly collaborate on the use and management of these resources which so many value.

Download
Files over 3MB may be slow to open. For best results, right-click and select "save as..."

Share

COinS