Protected areas and Indigenous rights in Sápmi: an agonistic reading of conflict and collaboration in land use planning

References

• Allard, C., & Brännström, M. (2021). Girjas reindeer herding community v. Sweden: Analysing the merits of the Girjas case. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, 12, 56. https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v12.2678
   Google Scholar
• Allard, C., & Curran, D. (2021). Indigenous influence and engagement in mining permitting in British Columbia, Canada: Lessons for Sweden and Norway? Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01536-0
   Google Scholar
• Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy. What’s the problem represented to be? Pearson Higher Education.
   Google Scholar
• Barry, J. (2012). Indigenous state planning as inter-institutional capacity development: The evolution of “government-to-government” relations in coastal British Columbia, Canada. Planning Theory & Practice, 13(2), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.677122
   Google Scholar
• Brännström, M. (2017). Skogsbruk och renskötsel på samma mark: En rättsvetenskaplig studie av äganderätten och renskötselrätten [Forestry and reindeer herding on shared land: A juridical study of ownership rights and herding rights]. [Doctoral dissertation, Umeå University Press]. https://inrati.se/index.php/inrati/article/view/56/53.
   Google Scholar
• Brockington, D. (2002). The preservation of Mkomazi game reserve, Tanzania. Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Connelly, S., & Richardson, T. (2004). Exclusion: The necessary difference between ideal and practical consensus. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/0964056042000189772
   Google Scholar
• Daniels, S. E., & Walker, G. B. (2001). Working through environmental conflict. The collaborative learning approach. Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Engström, L., & Hajdu, F. (2019). Conjuring ‘Win-world’ – resilient development narratives in a large-scale agro-investment in Tanzania. The Journal of Development Studies, 55(6), 1201–1220. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2018.1438599
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes. Negotiating agreement without giving In (2nd ed.). Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Funder, M., & Marani, M. (2015). Local bureaucrats as bricoleurs. The everyday implementation practices of county environment officers in rural Kenya. International Journal of the Commons, 9(1), 87–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ganesh, S., & Zoller, H. M. (2012). Dialogue, activism, and democratic social change. Communication Theory, 22(1), 66–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2011.01396.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray, B. (2003). Framing of environmental disputes. In R. J. Lewicki, B. Gray, & M. Elliot (Eds.), Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases (pp. 11–34). Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gustafsson, M.-T., & Vacaflor-Schilling, A. (2021). Indigenous peoples and multiscalar environmental governance: The opening and closure of participatory spaces. Global Environmental Politics, 22(2), 70–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2007). The new institutionalism and the transformative goals of planning. In N. Verma (Ed.), Institutions and planning (pp. 61–87). Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Heinämäki, L. (2021). Legal appraisal of Arctic indigenous peoples right to free, prior and informed consent. In T. Koivurova, E. G. Broderstad, D. Cambou, & F. Stammler (Eds.), Routledge handbook of indigenous peoples in the Arctic (pp. 335–351). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Holmgren, L., Sandström, C., & Zachrisson, A. (2016). Protected area governance in Sweden: New modes of governance or business as usual? Local Environment, 22(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2016.1154518
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holstead, K., Funder, M., & Upton, C. (2021). Environmental governance on the street: Towards an expanded research agenda on street-level bureaucrats. Earth System Governance, 9, 100108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2021.100108
   Google Scholar
• Joosse, S., Powell, S., Bergeå, H., Böhm, S., Calderón, C., Caselunghe, E., Fischer, A., Grubbström, A., Hallgren, L., Holmgren, S., & Löf, A. (2020). Critical, engaged and change-oriented scholarship in environmental communication. Six methodological dilemmas to think with. Environmental Communication, 14(6), 758–771. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1725588
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kløcker Larsen, R., & Raitio, K. (2019). Implementing the state duty to consult in land and resource decisions: Perspectives from Sami communities and Swedish state officials. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, 10(0), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v10.1323
   Google Scholar
• Kløcker Larsen, R., Raitio, K., Stinnerbom, M. & Wik-Karlsson, J. (2017). Sami-state collaboration in the governance of cumulative effects assessment: A critical action research approach. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 64, 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.03.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1996). Hegemony and socialist strategy. Towards a radical democratic politics. Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence, R., & O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2022). Ignorance as strategy: ‘Shadow places’ and the social impacts of the ranger uranium mine. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 93, 106723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106723
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leifsen, E., Gustafsson, M.-T., Guzman-Gallegos, M. A., & Schilling-Vacaflor, A. (2017). New mechanisms of participation in extractive governance: Between technologies of governance and resistance work. Third World Quarterly, 38(5), 1043–1057. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2017.1302329
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McShane, T. O., Hirsch, P. D., Trung, T. C., Songorwa, A. N., Kinzig, A., Monteferri, B., Mutekanga, D., Thang, H. V., Dammert, J. L., Pulgar-Vidal, M., Welch-Devine, M., Brosius, J. P., Coppolillo, P., & O’Connor, S. (2011). Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biological Conservation, 144(3), 966–972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mörkenstam, U. (2019). Organised hypocrisy? The implementation of the international indigenous rights regime in Sweden. The International Journal of Human Rights, 23(10), 1718–1741. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2019.1629907
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Mouffe, C. (2005). The return of the political (8th ed.). Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson, R. (2021). Att bearkadidh: Om samiskt självbestämmande och samisk självkonstituering. [Doctoral dissertation, Political science]. http://su.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1594321/FULLTEXT05.pdf
   Google Scholar
• North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Österlin, C., & Raitio, K. (2020). Fragmented landscapes and planscapes—the double pressure of increasing natural resource exploitation on indigenous Sámi lands in northern Sweden. Resources, 9(9), 104. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources9090104
   Google Scholar
• Ragin, C. C. (2009). “Casing” and the process of social inquiry. In C. C. Ragin & H. S. Becker (Eds.), What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry (pp. 217–226). Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Raitio, K. (2012). New institutional approach to collaborative forest planning: Methods for analysis and lessons for policy. Land Use Policy, 29(2), 309–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raitio, K., Allard, C., & Lawrence, R. (2020). Mineral extraction in Swedish Sápmi: The regulatory gap between Sami rights and Sweden’s mining permitting practices. Land Use Policy, 99, 105001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rechciński, M., Tusznio, J., & Grodzińska-Jurczak, M. (2019). Protected area conflicts: A state-of-the-art review and a proposed integrated conceptual framework for reclaiming the role of geography. Biodiversity and Conservation, 28(10), 2463–2498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01790-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reimerson, E. (2016). Sami space for agency in the management of the Laponia world heritage site. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 21(7), 808–826. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2015.1032230
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubis, J. M., & Theriault, N. (2020). Concealing protocols: Conservation, indigenous survivance, and the dilemmas of visibility. Social & Cultural Geography, 21(7), 962–984. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2019.1574882
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saarikoski, H., Raitio, K., & Barry, J. (2013). Explaining ‘success’ in conflict resolution – policy regime changes and new interactive arenas in the great bear rainforest. Land Use Policy, 32, 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.10.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandström, M. (2020). Dekoloniseringskonst. Artivism i 2010-talets Sápmi [Decolonization art. Artivism in 2010th Sápmi]. [Doctoral dissertation, Umeå University]. http://umu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1466894/FULLTEXT01.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Young, I. M. (2001). Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 29(5), 670–690. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591701029005004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zachrisson, A., & Lindahl, K. B. (2013). Conflict resolution through collaboration: Preconditions and limitations in forest and nature conservation controversies. Forest Policy and Economics, 33, 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar