This article engages critically with recent social theorising about local development, with illustrative examples from Icelandic peripheral settings. People in resource–based localities have attempted to cope with the transformations of late modernity in various ways. Such coping strategies consist of reflexive social practices which simultaneously produce and make use of social capital. A view of social capital as embedded in practice is advanced: instead of considering it as being a quantitatively measurable property of individuals, communities or even nations, we suggest a qualitative, interactionist approach. Seen in this way, the analytical concepts of coping and social capital are helpful for understanding current trends from resource–based towards cultural economies. Tourism is one such trajectory which has become particularly significant in Iceland. Examples of coping and social capital are provided in the article, obtained from the authors’ studies of tourist operators in two Icelandic localities.

No abstract

Recent critiques of the nature-culture dualism, influenced by diverse theoretical stances, have effectively destabilized the "naturalness" of nature and highlighted its pervasive and intricate sociality. Yet the practical, ethical and political effects of this theoretical turn are open to question. In particular, the emphasis on the sociality of nature has not led to reinvigorated environmental or landscape politics. Meanwhile, the need for such politics has if anything increased, as evident when ongoing and, arguably, accelerating landscape transformations are taken into account.These concerns are illustrated in the paper with an example from Iceland. In its uninhabited central highland, serious battles are now being fought over landscape values. Capital and state have joined forces in an investment-driven scramble for hydropower and geothermal resources to facilitate heavy industry, irrevocably transforming landscapes in the process. Dissonant voices arguing for caution and conservation have been sidelined or silenced by the power(ful) alliance.The author argues for renewed attention to the aesthetic, including the visual, if responsible politics of landscape are to be achieved. Aesthetic appreciation is an important part of the everyday experiences of most people. Yet, enthusiastic as they have been in deconstructing conventional narratives of nature, geographers have been rather timid when it comes to analysing aesthetic values of landscape and their significance, let alone in suggesting progressive landscape politics. A political geography of landscape is needed which takes aesthetics seriously, and which acknowledges the merit of engagement and enchantment.

No abstract

Ecological restoration centers on the reestablishment of ecological processes and the integrity of degraded ecosystems, but its success also depends on public acceptance and support. In this study, we evaluated the short-term ecological effects of different restoration treatments in Iceland. Furthermore, we tested the public perception of aesthetic and recreational values of these revegetated areas. Predefined soil and vegetation indicators were measured, and a survey, based on a questionnaire and photographs of the different areas, was used for gauging public perception.Our results indicate that different restoration treatments triggered different succession trajectories. The vegetation composition of areas seeded with grasses seemed to be on a trajectory toward relatively undisturbed reference ecosystems, whereas areas seeded with nonnative lupine seemed to be developing a novel ecosystem. Results of the survey demonstrated that people valued the appearance of revegetated areas higher than that of the eroded control areas, with the exception of areas seeded with lupine. The visual perception of each restoration treatment corresponded well with the ecological factors and revealed both a social and an ecological rationale against the use of lupine in land restoration. The results indicate that the design of restoration projects should be based on both an analysis of sociocultural priorities and an understanding of possible trajectories of ecosystem development associated with the available restoration methods to avoid results that are neither socially acceptable nor ecologically feasible.