Mapping mineral resources in a living land: Sami mining resistance in Ohcejohka, northern Finland

Where is the community in geoparks? A systematic literature review and call for attention to the societal embedding of geoparks

“…By including perceived landscape values of locals, conservation measures can balance between natural, cultural, and economic values of landscapes, include tacit knowledge in planning efforts, and work towards more holistic spatial management with less danger of alienating local stakeholders (Brown, ). Such studies have resulted in the widespread acceptance that communities are important stakeholders whose values need to be considered to avoid conflict in integrative natural resource management (Brown, ; Kaltenborn, ; Lassila, ; Williams & Stewart, ). Hence, studies on community involvement in landscape conservation should not just passively describe communities as part of the context of geoparks, as is currently the tendency in geopark studies (Table ).…”

“…For example, Brown (2005) uses landscape values as a bridging concept between ecosystem science and nature conservation management. Such studies have resulted in the widespread acceptance that communities are important stakeholders whose values need to be considered to avoid conflict in integrative natural resource management (Brown, 2013;Kaltenborn, 1998;Lassila, 2018;Williams & Stewart, 1998). Such studies have resulted in the widespread acceptance that communities are important stakeholders whose values need to be considered to avoid conflict in integrative natural resource management (Brown, 2013;Kaltenborn, 1998;Lassila, 2018;Williams & Stewart, 1998).…”

“…As this present study shows, critical analyses of the heritage values of landscapes, of the position of local communities, and of the processes through which the mentioned socio‐economic benefits should be achieved, remain largely absent in geopark research. This lacuna is striking since studies in related fields show that: (1) (geo)heritage cannot be decoupled from the communities which construct, interpret, and experience certain objects or processes as being “heritage” (Ashworth et al., ; Harvey, ; Tunbridge & Ashworth, ), (2) communities are important stakeholders whose values need to be considered to avoid conflict in integrative natural resource management (Brown, ; Kaltenborn, ; Lassila, ; Williams & Stewart, ), and (3) benefits of tourism for communities in rural areas are often disappointing or, at the least, hard to achieve (Kauppila et al., ; Rogerson, ; Saarinen, ; Stoffelen & Vanneste, ). Building on an analytical literature review that is presented in the next section, this paper calls for more innovative, interdisciplinary studies of the role of the community in, and the societal embedding of, geoparks.…”

“…This lacuna is striking since studies in related fields show that: (1) (geo)heritage cannot be decoupled from the communities which construct, interpret, and experience certain objects or processes as being "heritage" (Ashworth et al, 2007;Harvey, 2001;Tunbridge & Ashworth, 1996), (2) communities are important stakeholders whose values need to be considered to avoid conflict in integrative natural resource management (Brown, 2013;Kaltenborn, 1998;Lassila, 2018;Williams & Stewart, 1998), and (3) benefits of tourism for communities in rural areas are often disappointing or, at the least, hard to achieve (Kauppila et al, 2009;Rogerson, 2015;Saarinen, 2003;Stoffelen & Vanneste, 2016). This lacuna is striking since studies in related fields show that: (1) (geo)heritage cannot be decoupled from the communities which construct, interpret, and experience certain objects or processes as being "heritage" (Ashworth et al, 2007;Harvey, 2001;Tunbridge & Ashworth, 1996), (2) communities are important stakeholders whose values need to be considered to avoid conflict in integrative natural resource management (Brown, 2013;Kaltenborn, 1998;Lassila, 2018;Williams & Stewart, 1998), and (3) benefits of tourism for communities in rural areas are often disappointing or, at the least, hard to achieve (Kauppila et al, 2009;Rogerson, 2015;Saarinen, 2003;Stoffelen & Vanneste, 2016).…”

Beliefs in Conflict: The Management of Teno Atlantic Salmon in the Sámi Homeland in Finland

“…The Teno conflict is one example of conflicts over natural resources in the Sámi homeland emerging from the unresolved land and water rights of the Sámi people. The conflicts involve mining controversies (Lassila 2018 ), forestry and reindeer herding (Jokinen 2014 ), nature conservation, and reindeer herding (Heikkinen et al 2010 ). Fisheries conflicts have also been widely examined in Canada (Denny and Fanning 2016 ; Young et al 2018 ), Scotland (Butler et al 2015 ), and Norway and Finland (Brattland and Mustonen 2018 ).…”