Denmark is currently producing the first iteration of their Maritime Spatial Plan, as required by the European Union's Maritime Spatial Planning Directive 2014/89. Various conflicts have arisen during the process, particularly regarding a potential 'disconnect' between the maritime and terrestrial planning systems, with a lack of integration of planning decisions and processes carried out at sea and on land. The following article investigates the Danish approach to governing land-sea interactions, exploring the impacts of various institutional and procedural factors on the practice of planning at the land-sea interface in Denmark. We find that in Denmark, the maritime spatial planning process has priority over the terrestrial planning system, that there is a complex institutional set-up with a lack of integration between the maritime and terrestrial planning systems, and that there are conflicting perspectives about the importance of certain industries. The article hopes to draw out lessons useful for academics and practitioners alike, both on the Danish and international scale.
Coastal and marine cultural heritage (CMCH) is at risk due to its location and its often indefinable value. As these risks are likely to intensify in the future, there is an urgent need to build CMCH resilience. We argue that the current CMCH risk management paradigm narrowly focuses on the present and preservation. This tends to exclude debates about the contested nature of resilience and how it may be achieved beyond a strict preservationist approach. There is a need, therefore, to progress a broader and more dynamic framing of CMCH management that recognises the shift away from strict preservationist approaches and incorporates the complexity of heritage’s socio-political contexts. Drawing on critical cultural heritage literature, we reconceptualise CMCH management by rethinking the temporality of cultural heritage. We argue that cultural heritage may exist in four socio-temporal manifestations (extant, lost, dormant, and potential) and that CMCH management consists of three broad socio-political steering processes (continuity, discontinuity, and transformation). Our reconceptualisation of CMCH management is a first step in countering the presentness trap in CMCH management. It provides a useful conceptual framing through which to understand processes beyond the preservationist approach and raises questions about the contingent and contested nature of CMCH, ethical questions around loss and transformation, and the democratisation of cultural heritage management.
This paper examines the maintenance of the knowledge and practice of Nordic clinker boat building in the setting of coastal Denmark, characterized as a form of intangible cultural heritage (ICH). We explore the 'working' dimension of these boats as small-scale fishing vessels and the risks to this ICH as expressed in various policy, social, and economic domains. The paper centres around a working boatyard on the west coast of North Jutland, incorporating perspectives from a network of wooden boat builders, and those working in coastal and maritime cultural heritage in Denmark and the wider Nordic region. Threats to the continuation of the heritage in its 'working' form are explored using responses from semi-structured interviews, as well as documents related to the pan-Nordic application for the inscription of Nordic Clinker Boat Traditions on UNESCO's Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. The case highlights the challenges specific to 'boatbuilding for industry' as a form of ICH and opens a discussion on which actors and institutions ought to be responsible for safeguarding, maintaining and cultivating its practice and renewal.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.