Conflicting environmental imaginaries and the politics of nature in Central Appalachia

Citation
Jt. Nesbitt et D. Weiner, Conflicting environmental imaginaries and the politics of nature in Central Appalachia, GEOFORUM, 32(3), 2001, pp. 333-349
Citations number
81
Categorie Soggetti
EnvirnmentalStudies Geografy & Development
Journal title
GEOFORUM
ISSN journal
00167185 → ACNP
Volume
32
Issue
3
Year of publication
2001
Pages
333 - 349
Database
ISI
SICI code
0016-7185(200108)32:3<333:CEIATP>2.0.ZU;2-R
Abstract
Political ecology has become useful for contextualizing concerns of discour se, nature, society, and development within specific regional settings. Rec ent attempts to develop an environment-development approach within politica l ecology have produced a myriad of research topics that are linked to a di versity of theoretical literatures. Increased importance is being placed on conflicting environmental imaginaries, and doing contextual environmental histories within political ecology. This stems from the need to incorporate agency within the broader context of human-nature interaction in order to better assess material struggles over the natural environment. This paper e xamines the political ecology of environmental struggle in Central Appalach ia. Of particular concern is how Central Appalachian environmental historie s and natural resource struggles produce conflicting environmental imaginar ies. Recently, conflict has flared between local land owners who view natur al resources as a means for social reproduction and cultural survival, and government and environmentalist 'outsiders' who view local environmental re sources in the context of recreational consumption and resource conservatio n. It is concluded that natural resource struggles have internally transfor med the social, environmental, and economic make-up of Central Appalachia, and in turn impacted the ways in which local residents use and understand t he natural environment. This research also suggests that local social movem ents associated with the ownership, access, and use of natural resources ar e not necessarily progressive, as is often suggested in the Appalachian lit erature. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.