Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T03:57:29.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discourses of Nature Conservation and Heritage Management in the Past, Present and Future: Discussing Heritage and Sustainable Development from Swedish Experiences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Peter Skoglund  and
Eva Svensson
Peter Skoglund
Affiliation:
Sydsvensk Arkeologi AB, Sweden
Eva Svensson
Affiliation:
Karlstad University, Sweden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The relationship between heritage management and nature conservation in Sweden has changed over time, from an earlier division between the two sectors – with nature conservation attached to the growing movement of environmental politics – towards more integrated ways of working under the umbrella of sustainable development. As forests have been associated with nature, the earlier divide has been more evident with forested areas than agricultural areas, a view that has contributed to the marginalization of such landscapes and their inhabitants. With the more integrated policy, heritage management is drawn into the societal discourse of ecological modernization, where environmental and sustainability issues have become new business ideas and sources of further economic growth. From an ecological modernization perspective, nature and cultural heritage are today (touristic) commodities, enforcing the power of the urban world over the rural world and thus risk contributing to further marginalization of the inhabitants. However, heritage sites appear to function as boundary objects in local communities, and may thus function as meeting places and sources of enhancement of community pride. Therefore, we argue for community participation and public communication within the heritage sector, especially concerning marginalized, forested landscapes in order to contribute to an increased knowledge and understanding of the local heritage and history, thus opening the way for creative local processes.

La relation entre gestion du patrimoine et protection de la nature en Suède a changé avec le temps, d'une division entre les deux secteurs– avec la protection de la nature liée au mouvement croissant de la politique environnementale – vers une approche plus générale qui consiste à travailler sous l'égide du développement durable. Comme les forêts ont été associées à la nature, cette première division était plus accentuée concernant les zones forestières que les zones agricoles; une approche qui a contribué à la marginalisation de ces paysages et de leurs habitants. Une politique plus intégrée a pour conséquence que la gestion du patrimoine fait partie du discours sociétal de la modernisation écologique, où les questions environnementales et de durabilité sont devenues des nouvelles idées d'affaires et sources d'encore plus de croissance économique. D'un point de vue de modernisation écologique, la nature et le patrimoine culturel sont aujourd'hui des matières premières (touristiques), faisant valoir le pouvoir du milieu urbain sur le milieu rural et risquant ainsi de contribuer encore plus à la marginalisation des habitants. Toutefois, les sites de patrimoine paraissent jouer le rôle d'objets-limites dans les communautés locales, et pourraient ainsi servir de lieux de réunion et sources de revalorisation de la fierté communautaire. C'est pourquoi nous insistons sur l'importance de la participation communautaire et de la communication publique dans le secteur du patrimoine, surtout en ce qui concerne les paysages forestiers marginalisés, afin de contribuer à une augmentation du savoir et de la compréhension du patrimoine et de l'histoire locaux et d'ouvrir ainsi le chemin à des processus créatifs régionaux.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Die Beziehung zwischen Denkmalpflege und Naturschutz in Schweden hat sich im Laufe der Zeit von einer früheren Trennung zwischen zwei Sektoren – mit dem Naturschutz in enger Verflechtung mit der wachsenden umweltpolitischen Bewegung – zu stärker integrierten Arbeitsformen unter dem Dach nachhaltiger Entwicklung geändert. Da Wälder gemeinhin mit der Natur in Verbindung gebracht wurden, war die frühere Trennung stärker auf bewaldete als auf landwirtschaftlich genutzte Gebiete ausgerichtet und trug damit zu einer stärkeren Marginalisierung derartiger Landschaften und ihrer Bewohner bei. Mit der ganzheitlicheren Politik wurde die Denkmalpflege in den gesellschaftlichen Diskurs der ökologischen Modernisierung einbezogen, in dem Umwelt- und Nachhaltigkeitsfragen zu neuen Geschäftsideen und Quellen weiteren ökonomischen Wachstums geworden sind. Aus der Perspektive einer ökologischen Modernisierung sind das Natur- und das Kulturerbe heute (touristische) Rohstoffe, die die Kraft der urbanen über die ländliche Welt durchsetzen und so riskieren, deren Bewohner weiter zu marginalisieren. Allerdings scheinen Bodendenkmale als Grenzobjekte in lokalen Gemeinschaften und somit als Treffpunkte und Quellen der Vertiefung des gemeinschaftlichen Stolzes zu fungieren. Aus diesem Grund argumentieren wir für eine Beteiligung der Gemeinschaft und eine öffentliche Kommunikation innerhalb des Denkmalpflegesektors, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung marginalisierter, bewaldeter Landschaften, um zu vertiefter Kenntnis und Verständnis des lokalen Natur- und Kulturerbes und der Geschichte beizutragen und somit einen Weg für kreative lokale Prozesse zu bahnen.

Keywords

boundary objectsforestheritage managementheritage modernizationhybrid landscapelocal sustainabilitynature conservationobjets-limitesforêtgestion du patrimoinemodernisation du patrimoinepaysage hybridedurabilité localeprotection de la natureGrenzobjekteWaldDenkmalpflegeModernisierung des Natur- und Kulturerbeshybride Landschaftlokale NachhaltigkeitNaturschutz
Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , 2010 , pp. 368 - 385
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 SAGE Publications 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bäckstrand, K., 2001. What can Nature Withstand? Science, Politics and Discourses in Transboundary Air Pollution Diplomacy. Lund: Lunds Universitet.Google Scholar
Bell, M., 2004. Archaeology and green issues. In Bintliff, J. (ed.), A Companion to Archaeology: 509–531. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carson, R., 2002 (1962). Silent Spring (40th anniversary edition). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.Google Scholar
Christie, N., Beavitt, P., Santoja, J.G., Gil Senis, V. and Segui, J., 2007. Peopling the recent past in the Serra de L'Altmirant: Shepherds and farmers at the margins. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 11 (4): 304–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Correia, T.P. 2004. Rural landscape changes and public policies. Understanding people's decisions and reactions as a basis for future management. Examples from southern Europe. In Saltzman, K. and Stenseke, M. (eds), Landscape Management with People in Mind. Proceedings from a Workshop at Lökeberg, 12–13 Nov 2003: 18–31. Göteborg: School of Economics and Commercial Law (Department of Human and Economic Geography Occasional Papers 2004:2).Google Scholar
Dwyer, P.D. 1996. The invention of nature. In Ellen, R. and Fukui, K. (eds), Redefining Nature. Ecology, Culture and Domestication: 157–186. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Eksvärd, K., Hallgren, L., Lönngren, G., Norrby, T., Tivell, A., Westberg, L. and Byström, M., 2006. Gå en mil i mina skor på väg mot samförvaltning. Uppsala: Institutionen för stad och land, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet. Working paper 8. Institutionen för stad och land, SLU och Centrum för biologisk mångfald.Google Scholar
Ellen, R. 1996. Introduction. In Ellen, R. and Fukui, K. (eds), Redefining Nature. Ecology, Culture and Domestication: 1–36. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Emanuelsson, M., Johansson, A., Nilsson, S., Pettersson, S. and Svensson, E., 2003. Settlement, Shieling and Landscape. The Local History of a Forest Hamlet. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International (Lund Studies in Medieval Archaeology 32).Google Scholar
Environmental Objectives Portal, 2010. URL (accessed 30 April 2010) http://www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal Google Scholar
European Landscape Convention, n.d. URL (accessed 30 April 2010): http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/landscape/default_EN.asp Google Scholar
Fairclough, G., 2002. Archaeologists and the European Landscape Convention. In Fairclough, G. and Rippon, S. (eds), Europe's Cultural Landscape – Archaeologists and the Management of Change: 25–37. Brussels: Europae Archaeologiae Consilium.Google Scholar
Fischer, F., 2000. Citizens, Experts, and the Environment. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Forest Europe, 2005. MCPFE Work Programme. (Pan-European Follow-up of the Fourth Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe 28–30 April 2003, Vienna, Austria).Google Scholar
Foster, D.R., 2000. Conservation lessons and challenges from ecological history. Forest History Today (Fall):2–11.Google Scholar
Foster, D and Aber, R.F., 2003. Forests in Time. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Friman, E., 2002. No Limits. The 20th Century Discourse of Economic Growth. Umeå: Umeå universitet.Google Scholar
Hajer, M., 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Hajer, M. and Fischer, F., 1999. Beyond global discourse. The rediscovery of culture in environmental politics. In Fischer, F. and Hajer, M.A. (eds), Living with Nature. Environmental Politics as Cultural Discourse: 1–20. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hayashida, F.M., 2005. Archaeology, ecological history, and conservation. Annual Review of Anthropology 34: 43–65.Google Scholar
Horning, A., 2007. Materiality and mutable landscapes. Rethinking seasonality and marginality in rural Ireland. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 11 (4): 358–378.Google Scholar
Ilcan, S. and Basok, T., 2004. Community government. Voluntary agencies, social justice, and the responsibilization of citizens. Citizenship Studies 8 (2): 129–144.Google Scholar
Lagerås, P., ed., 2000. Arkeologi och paleoekologi i sydvästra Småland. Riksantikvarieämbetet, Arkeologiska undersökningar 34. Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetet.Google Scholar
Lagerås, P., 2007. The Ecology of Expansion and Abandonment. Medieval and Post-medieval Land-use and Settlement Dynamics in a Landscape Perspective. Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetet.Google Scholar
Lind, H. and Svensson, E., 2001. Sentida bebyggelse i antikvarisk och arkeologisk verksamhet – en tematisk utvärdering. In Lind, H., Svensson, E. and Hansson, J. (eds), Projekt uppdragsarkeologi. Sentida bebyggelse i antikvarisk och arkeologisk verksamhet: 6–46. Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetet (Riksantikvarieämbetet, Kunskapsavdelningen Rapport 2001:2).Google Scholar
Loeffler, D., 2005. Contested Landscapes/Contested Heritage. History and Heritage in Sweden and Their Archaeological Implications Concerning the Interpretation of the Norrlandian Past. Umeå: Umeå universitet (Archaeology and Environment 18).Google Scholar
Mels, T. 1999. Wild Landscapes. The Cultural Nature of Swedish National Parks. Lund: Lunds universitet (Meddelanden från Lunds universitets geografiska institution. Avhandlingar 137).Google Scholar
Miljödepartementet, 2001/2002. En samlad naturvårdspolitik. Regeringens skrivelse 2001/2002:173.Google Scholar
Millenary Ecosystems Assessment Board, n.d. Living beyond our means. Natural assets and human well-being. Statement from the board. URL (accessed 10 May 2010): http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.429.aspx.pdf Google Scholar
Mitchell, T., 2001. Making the nation. The politics of heritage in Egypt. In Al Sayyad, N. (ed.), Consuming Tradition, Manufacturing Heritage. Global Norms and Urban Forms in the Age of Tourism: 212–239. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Morse, S., 2008. Post-sustainable development. Sustainable Development 16: 341–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mugerauer, R., 2004. The tensed embrace of tourism and traditional environments. Exclusionary practices in Cancún, Cuba, and southern Florida. In Al Sayyad, N. (ed.), The End of Tradition?: 116–143. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Naturvårdsverket, n.d. URL (accessed 30 April 2010): http://www.naturvardsverket.se/en/In-English/Menu/ Google Scholar
Nicholson, R.A. and O'Connor, T.P., 2000. People as an agent of environmental change. An introduction. In Nicholson, R.A. and O'Connor, T.P. (eds), People as an Agent of Environmental Change:v–vi. Oxford: Symposia of the Association for Environmental Archaeology No.16.Google Scholar
Nilsson, B., Skoglund, P. and Svensson, E., 2008. Mötesplatser – på väg mot en samlad natur- och kulturmiljövård. Lund: Lunds universistet (Institutionen för arkeologi och antikens historia, Archaeology@Lund Vol. 3).Google Scholar
Nitare, J., Ringagård, J., Sollander, E., Svensson, S.A., Thuresson, T. and Wallin, B., 2004. Kontinuitetsskogar – en förstudie. Skogsstyrelsen. Meddelande 1: 2004.Google Scholar
Ödmann, E., Bucht, E. and Nordström, M., 1982. Vildmarken och välfärden. Om naturskyddslagstiftningens tillkomst. Stockholm: LiberFörlag.Google Scholar
Östlund, L., Bergman, I. and Zackrisson, O., 2004. Trees for food – a 3000 year record of subarctic plant use. Antiquity 78 (300): 278–286.Google Scholar
Östlund, L., Zackrisson, O. and Hörnberg, G., 2002. Trees on the border between nature and culture – Culturally modified trees in boreal Scandinavia. Environmental History 7 (1): 48–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paju, M., 2002. Kulturmiljön i den regionala utvecklingen. En fallstudierapport. Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetet (Rapport från Riksantikvarieämbetet 2002:4).Google Scholar
Riksantikvarieämbetet 1, n.d. Our mission, URL (accessed 30 April 2010): http://www.raa.se/cms/en/our_mission.html Google Scholar
Riksantikvarieämbetet 2, n.d. Skog & Historia. URL (accessed 30 April 2010): http://www.raa.se/cms/extern/kulturarv/arkeologi_och_fornlamningar/skog_och_historia.html Google Scholar
Riksantikvarieämbetet, 2000. Studie av skador på fornlämningar i skogsmark. Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetet (Rapport Dnr 351-2706-1999).Google Scholar
Riksantikvarieämbetet, 2004. Agenda kulturarv – slutrapport. Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetets förlag.Google Scholar
Riksantikvarieämbetet, 2006. Studie av skador på fornlämningar i skogsmark. Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetet (Rapport från Riksantikvarieämbetet 2006:2).Google Scholar
Skoglund, P., 2005. Vardagens landskap. Lokala perspektiv på bronsålderns materiella kultur. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International (Acta Archaeologica Lundensia Series in 8° no. 49).Google Scholar
Skoglund, P., 2007. Landscape, history and monuments – a material culture perspective. In Salisbury, R.S. and Keeler, D. (eds), Space – Archaeology's Final Frontier. An Intercontinental Approach: 244–271. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Skogsstyrelsen, n.d. Skog & Historia. URL (accessed 30 April 2010): www.svo.se/minskog/templates/minskog_vanlig.asp?id=10530 Google Scholar
Sörlin, S., 1991. Naturkontraktet. Om naturumgängets idéhistoria. Stockholm: Carlsson.Google Scholar
Star, S.L. and Griesemer, J.R., 1989. Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects. Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science 19 (4): 387–420.Google Scholar
Sundin, B. and Sörlin, S., 1998. Landskapets värdefrågor. Kring miljö- och kulturmiljövård som historiskt problemfält. In Pettersson, R. and Sörlin, S. (eds), Miljön och det förflutna. Landskap minnen och värden: 3–19. Umeå: Umeå universitet (Idéhistoriska skrifter 22).Google Scholar
Svensson, B., 1998. Hur utövas makten över landskapet? Tid och plats som kompetens i den moderna kulturmiljön. In Pettersson, R. and Sörlin, S., S. (eds), Miljön och det förflutna. Landskap, minnen, värden: 50–75. Umeå: Umeå universitet (Idéhistoriska skrifter 22).Google Scholar
Svensson, E., 1998. Människor i utmark. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International (Lund Studies in Medieval Archaeology 21).Google Scholar
Svensson, E., 2003. The outland – a dangerous area or an arena for routine activities of men, women and children? In Bergstøl, J. (ed.), Scandinavian Archaeological Practice – In Theory. Proceedings from the 6th Nordic TAG, Oslo 2001: 386–398. Oslo: Institutt for arkeologi, kunsthistorie og konservering, Universitetet i Oslo.Google Scholar
Svensson, E., 2009. Consuming nature – producing heritage. Aspects of conservation, economical growth and community participation in a forested, sparsely populated area in Sweden. International Journal of Heritage Studies 15 (6): 540–559.Google Scholar
Svensson, E., Makarov, N., Emanuelsson, M., Johansson, A., Nilsson, S., Pettersson, S. and Zakharov, S., 2001. Different peripheries. Two examples from Russia and Sweden. Lund Archaeological Review 7: 123–137.Google Scholar
Swedish Local Heritage Movement, n.d. URL (accessed 10 December 2005): http://www.hembygd.se/index.asp?lev=1143 Google Scholar
Swyngedouw, E., 2005. Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state. Urban Studies 42 (11): 1991–2006.Google Scholar
United Nations, 1987. Our Common Future, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. URL (Accessed 29 April 2010): http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm#I Google Scholar
Vilborg, I. and Svanberg, O., 2005. Skyddad natur – en motor för regional och lokal utveckling. En främjande utvärdering av arbetet för hållbar regional utveckling genom skötsel och nyttjande av skyddade områden. Naturvårdsverket. Rapport 5504. Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.Google Scholar
Weissglas, G., Paju, M., Westin, L. and Danell, T., 2002. Kulturarvet som resurs för regional utveckling. En kunskapsöversikt. Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetet (Rapport från Riksantikvarieämbetet 2002:1).Google Scholar
Wilson, A., 1991. The Culture of Nature. North American Landscape from Disney to the Exxon Valdez. Toronto: Between The Lines.Google Scholar
Zackrisson, O. L. Östlund, Korhonen, O. and Bergman, I., 2000. The ancient use of Pinus Sylvestris L. (Scots pine) inner bark by Sami people in northern Sweden related to cultural and ecological factors. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 9 (2): 99–109.Google Scholar
Zackrisson, T., 1997. Antikvariernas och andras landskap. In Burström, M., Winberg, B. and Zachrisson, T., Fornlämningar och folkminnen: 12–59. Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetet.Google Scholar