‘Nobody is forgotten, nothing is forgotten’: Cultural sustainability in ruptured landscapes in Estonia

Sooväli-Sepping, Helen

doi:10.1080/00291951.2017.1344299

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regional planning policy stakeholders regard the rise of the rural community movement with neo‐endogenous development as a positive response to the post‐socialist crisis in agriculture as well as a strategy for dealing with the growing economic, political, and social marginalisation of the rural population. The implications of relational developments related to the post‐productivist countryside in Estonia are studied, for instance, in the context of the tourism industry (Bardone et al., 2013; Kaaristo & Järv, 2012; Võsu & Sooväli‐Sepping, 2012), stakeholder conflicts (Bardone & Spalvena, 2019; Printsmann & Pikner, 2019; Sooväli‐Sepping, 2017), social stratification (Plüschke‐Altof, 2019) or mobile communities (Nugin & Kasemets, 2021). A recent neo‐endogenous governance‐oriented development is supported by the Administrative‐Territorial Reform in Estonia in 2017, which paid attention to the creation of functional local governance and the developing socio‐spatial infrastructure for regional networking.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stewardship and everyday governance: Managing materialities in a south‐eastern village community, Estonia

Kasemets

2023

Sociologia Ruralis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines landscape stewardship from the perspective of landscape biography and focuses on different outcomes on how individual and collective stewardship connected to local place attachment and historic understandings are leveraged as local knowledge in sustaining locally important landscapes. The analysis is based on semi‐structured interviews with local people and active residents in three neighbouring villages of south‐eastern Estonia. Particular attention is paid to their place attachment and self‐actualisation in landscape materialities, such as housing, village centre, water bodies and village borders. To bring the diverse types of knowledge connected to landscape stewardship to the forefront, the study suggests careful differentiation between neo‐endogenous community governance and place‐based wisdom of local stakeholders. This differentiation indicates that stewardship should be identified as a micro‐policy term that is oriented towards a collective platform of the information exchange for local capacity building. This would lead to multiple and resilient place‐based know‐how related to territories, political networks and associated land use discourses.

show abstract