SandLife and the death of dunes: political ecology discourses from conservation to restoration in Haverdal, Sweden

Abstract

This study concerns narratives and practices developed within landscape management in a Natura 2000 area in the south-west of Sweden. This European Union-funded project shifted focus from morphological and passive conservation management to intervening in biological management. I investigate some of the consequences of re-politicized discourses and practices during this period. I ask how a traditional policy view on conservation was handled during this change, and what role EU funding has in preserving or changing a traditional management policy for landscape conservation. The conclusions are that landscape protection is driven by political and ideological values connected with institutionalized aesthetic components that are adjusted to whatever disciplinary focus prevails at the time. However, traditional approaches are retained, excluding participatory methods and the social dimensions on landscape management. To some extent, the available EU funding leverages alignment of project goals and management, influencing landscape alteration. Keywords: SandLife, political ecology discourses, landscape restoration and management, aesthetics, morphology and biology, EU projects

The strategy of shifting cultivators in West Kalimantan in adapting to the market economy: empirical evidence behind gaps in interdisciplinary communication

“…The cultural ecology perspective has contributed to the viewpoint that shifting cultivation is a material response to meeting livelihood needs, as well as the implementation of a subsistence economic strategy that evolves with local culture, knowledge, and technology (Dove 2015;Geertz 2016;McCullough 2019;Scott 1976). The political ecology perspective places greater attention on structural, multiscale issues including policy effects and politics, historical change, social networks and gender, injustices and vulnerability, economic-political pressures, and concerns over climate change issues (Elmhirst et al 2017;Friedmann 2015;Li 2015;Mathevet et al 2015;Ndamani and Watanabe 2015;Olsson and Jerneck 2010;Peluso 1992Peluso , 2005Ring 2020;Sima et al 2015;Thung 2018;Toumbourou and Dressler 2020;Willow and Wylie 2014;Zanotti et al 2020;Zimmerer and Bassett 2003). A synergy of the two perspectives is crucial in order to reestablish an integrated understanding on the correlation between economic political struggle for environmental resources, the cultural meanings attached to an environment, and the changing dynamics of ecology-environment (Benjaminsen and Svarstad 2019;Nygren and Rikoon 2008;Peterson 2000;Quandt 2016).…”

“…The cultural core element includes organization of livelihoods, the economic system, social organization, and technology at community level (Dove 2015;Geertz 2016;McCullough 2019;Siahaya et al 2016). 12 Political ecologists ___________________________________________________________________________________ recognize that agrarian societies are laden with the effects of politics, the expression of power by elites and corporate actors, and injustices (Friedmann 2015;Li 2015;Mathevet et al 2015;Peluso 2005;Ring 2020;Toumbourou and Dressler 2020;Willow and Wylie 2014;Zanotti et al 2020;Zimmerer and Bassett 2003). A point of convergence, linking the conceptual interests of cultural and political ecology, is to interrogate how shifting cultivation as a strategy for ecological-economic adaptation operates, but it is constantly affected by national policies, global-national politico-economic interests, rights to natural resources, and issues of global climate change (Ndamani and Watanabe 2015;Sima et al 2015;Thaler and Anandi 2017;Thung 2018).…”