Keywords | Nøgleord
Citation/Eksport
Abstract | Abstract
In the Anthropocene, it becomes problematic to imagine a sustainable balance between society and the environment. This calls for post-sustainability modes of articulating human/non-human relationships. As an attempt towards an Anthropocenic understanding of society and the environment, we analyse how ecosystem services are mobilised in marine spatial planning in the south of Sweden. The study investigates how ecosystem services are understood and narrated in environmental strategy and interviews with environmental planners. We focus on seaweed and sand. These are two kinds of materials and potential resources that materially circulate and force together society and the environment in planning discourse and practice. Our findings show that although ecosystem services are readily understood as an anthropocentric construction, when mobilised in planning to manage an unruly nature they can be re-storied as an ontological mediator in human/non-human relations.
Referencer
Abson, David. J., Henrik.V. Wehrden, Stefan Baumgärtner, Joern Fischer, Jan Hanspach, Werner Härdtle, and Harald Heinrichs. 2014. “Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability.” Ecological Economics 103:29-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.012
Balina, Karina, Francesco Romagnoli, and Dagnija Blumberga. 2017. “Seaweed biorefinery concept for sustainable use of marine resources.” Energy Procedia 128:504-511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.067.
Barnaud, Cécile, and Martine Antona. 2014. “Deconstructing ecosystem services: Uncertainties and controversies around a socially constructed concept.” Geoforum 56:113-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.07.003
Bullock, Craig, Deirdre Joyce, and Marcus Collier. 2018. “An exploration of the relationships between cultural ecosystem services, socio-cultural values and well-being.” Ecosystem services 31:142-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.020
Castree, Noel. 2003. “Environmental issues: Relational ontologies and hybrid politics.” Progress in Human Geography 27 (2):203-211. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132503ph422pr
Castree, Noel. 2019. “Perspectives on the nature of environmental planning.” The Routledge Companion to Environmental Planning (pp. 21-31). London and New York: Routledge.
Cheng, Xin, Sylvie Van Damme, Luyuan Li and Pieter Uyttenhove. 2019. “Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services: A review of methods.” Ecosystem Services 37: 100925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100925
Costanza, Robert, Rudolf de Groot, Leon Braat, Ida Kubiszewski, Lorenzo Fioramonti, Paul Sutton, Steve Farber and Monica Grasso. 2017. “Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?” Ecosystem Services 28:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008
Daily, Gretchen, Stephen Polasky, Joshua Goldstein, Peter M Kareiva, Harald A Mooney, Liba Pejchar, Taylor H Ricketts, James Salzman and Robert Shallenberger. 2009. “Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7 (1):21-28. https://doi.org/10.1890/080025
DePuy, Walker, Jacob Weger, Katie Foster, Anya M Bonanno, Suneel Kumar, Kristen Lear, Raul Basilio, and Laura German. 2021. “Environmental governance: Broadening ontological spaces for a more livable world.” Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 5 (2):947-975. https://doi.org/10.1177/25148486211018565
Fletcher, Robert. 2020. “Diverse ecologies: Mapping complexity in environmental governance.” Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 3 (2):481-502. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848619865880
Fish, Robert, Andrew Church, and Michael Winter. 2016. “Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement.” Ecosystem Services 21:208-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.002
Fremaux, Anne. 2019. After the Anthropocene. Green Republicanism in a Post-Capitalist World. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Gray, Rob. 2010. “Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability… and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 35:47-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.04.006
Gunton, Richard. M. Eline N. van Asperen, Andrew Basden, David Bookless, Yoseph Araya, David R. Hanson, Mark A. Goddard, George Otieno, and Gareth O. Jones. 2017. ”Beyond ecosystem services: Valuing the invaluable.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 32 (4):249-257. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.01.002
Hines, Ruth. D. 1988. “Financial accounting: In communication reality, we construct reality.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 13 (3):251-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(88)90003-7.
Kolinjivadi, Vijay. 2019. “Avoiding dualisms in ecological economics: Towards a dialectically informed understanding of co-produced socionatures.” Ecological Economics 163:32-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.05.004
Kull, Christian A., Xavier Arnauld de Sartre, and Monica Castro-Larrañaga. 2015. “The political ecology of ecosystem services.” Geoforum 61:122-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.03.004.
Latour, Bruno. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Latour, Bruno. 2017. Facing Gaia. Eight Lectures on the New Climate Regime. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Law, John. 2015. “What’s wrong with a one-world?” Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory 16 (1):126-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/1600910X.2015.1020066
McElwee, Pamela. 2017. “The metrics of making ecosystem services.” Environment and Society: Advances in Research 8:96-124. https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2017.080105
Miéville, China. 2009. The City & The City. London: Macmillan.
Muradian, Roldan, and Erik Gómez-Baggethun. 2021. “Beyond ecosystem services and nature’s contribution: Is it time to leave utilitarian environmentalism behind?” Ecological Economics 185:107038. https://doi.org/10.1916/j.ecolecon.2021.107038
Thorén, Henrik, and Sanna Stålhammar. 2018. “Ecosystem services between integration and economics imperialism.” Ecology and Society 23 (4):44. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10520-230444.
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2016. “Discourse as the recontextualization of social practice – a guide.” In Methods of Critical Discourse Studies, edited by Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 137-154. London: Sage.
Wodak, Ruth. 2008. “Introduction: Discourse Studies – Important Concepts and Terms.” In Qualitative Discourse analysis in the social sciences, edited by Ruth Wodak and Michael Krzyzanowski, 1-30. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dette værk er under følgende licens Creative Commons Navngivelse – Ikke-kommerciel – Ingen Bearbejdede Værker (by-nc-nd).